ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Development Programmes (Gender)

Andrea Leadsom: What steps she is taking to put girls and women at the heart of the UK’s development programmes.

Justine Greening: Before I answer that question, may I say how shocked and saddened I was to hear of the deaths of the Britons, Simon Chase and Del Singh, in the recent bomb attack in Kabul? Both were part of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan. Del was an employee of Adam Smith International, working on a Department for International Development programme. Our thoughts are with their families.
	In answer to question 1, giving women and girls a voice, choice and control has a transformative impact on poverty reduction and it is critical to freer and fairer societies and economies. The Department for International Development puts that at the centre of its work, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is introducing a Private Member’s Bill on this very topic.

Andrea Leadsom: I welcome the fact that the United Nations does such good work to support women and girls. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the earliest years in a child’s life are the most important, and will she tell us what steps her Department is taking to support greater life chances for baby girls?

Justine Greening: This is an area on which my hon. Friend rightly spends a lot of time. Much of DFID’s work focuses on early-years health, including maternal health and antenatal and postnatal health education. Furthermore, our G8 focused on nutrition, which is particularly important in ensuring that babies grow up healthy.

Gaza: Aid

Nia Griffith: What assessment she has made of the extent to which the amount of food, medical supplies and fuel that is entering Gaza meets the needs of the population.

Alan Duncan: The collapse in the supply of fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza in
	recent months and the rising price of food are exacerbating the already precarious humanitarian situation caused by restrictions on the movement of goods and people and the devastation of the winter storms.

Nia Griffith: The Minister will know that there are severe drug shortages in Gaza, leading to problems with the provision of proper emergency care. What is his Department doing to ensure that the Palestinians get better, more timely access to the health care that they need?

Alan Duncan: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was in the Palestinian territories last week and I spoke directly to a number of people in Gaza. The shortage of drugs is a serious issue, and that has been the case since about 2007. DFID is supporting the UN access co-ordination unit to work with the World Health Organisation, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the agencies to help to facilitate the transfer of medical equipment and supplies, and patient referrals, in and out of Gaza.

Mike Freer: Given that Egypt also has a border with Gaza, will the Minister tell us what representations he has made to the Egyptian Government on the steps they are taking to improve access?

Alan Duncan: The key point is that the tunnels from Egypt are now largely shut. DFID has had no direct conversations with the Government of Egypt, but I hope to visit that country in the next few months, and when I do so, I have no doubt that that matter will be on the agenda.

Richard Burden: Someone who did much to draw attention to the plight of the people living in Gaza, and who also represented Labour Friends of Palestine in the Gaza marathon two years ago and in the Bethlehem marathon, was Del Singh. He was killed last weekend in the attack on a restaurant in Kabul. Will the Minister join me in remembering Del Singh, and does he agree that Del will best be remembered by all of us redoubling our efforts to bring an end to the blockade of Gaza?

Alan Duncan: I wholly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. We offer our condolences and full sympathy following Del Singh’s death. It would be a tribute to him if we were all to raise the issue of the humanitarian challenge now facing Gaza. It is no exaggeration to say that, come the autumn, Gaza could be without food, without power and without clean water. One UN report predicts that it could become an unliveable place, meaning that it risks becoming unfit for human habitation.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Minister’s forthcoming talks with the Egyptian Government. Will he impress on them that, while we support the security crackdown in Sinai, it is important that they should make suitable provision for humanitarian assistance to cross the Egypt-Gaza border?

Alan Duncan: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but at the moment those borders are closed. Under international law and other obligations, primary
	responsibility rests with the occupying power, and it is to that end that we will continue to work closely with Israel in an attempt to alleviate the humanitarian pressure that Gaza currently faces.

Syria: Humanitarian Support

Michael McCann: What assessment she has made of the educational needs of Syrian-born children in Syria and in refugee communities.

Duncan Hames: What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria; and if she will make a statement.

Phillip Lee: What steps she is taking to improve the co-ordination of humanitarian support for Syria and the surrounding region.

Justine Greening: The humanitarian crisis in Syria has reached catastrophic proportions. In July last year, the United Nations estimated that more than 100,000 people had been killed. More than 9 million people in Syria now need humanitarian aid, 6.5 million of whom are internally displaced, and 2.4 million Syrians have fled the country. In Syria, 2 million children are out of school. The UK has led efforts to improve the co-ordination of the humanitarian response and the development of the “no lost generation” strategy, which is focused on helping the children affected by the crisis.

Michael McCann: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has asked western countries to give refuge to some of Syria’s most vulnerable people affected by this terrible war, including orphan children. The USA and Australia have stepped up to the plate. Why are the UK Government not doing so?

Justine Greening: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are playing a leading role, particularly in working with the very people affected by the crisis whom he has just talked about. The UK was instrumental in setting up the “no lost generation” initiative. It is absolutely focused not only on making sure that the millions of children affected by this crisis get education, but on protection. It is a crucial project, we are working hand in hand with UNICEF and I assure him that the UK is playing a leading role to ensure that we work with those very people he rightly cares about.

Duncan Hames: Nearly one in five schools in Syria has been destroyed, damaged or used by the military. At the very least at the talks in Geneva, will the Government press all parties to the Syrian conflict to end the use or targeting of schools or health facilities?

Justine Greening: We certainly will, and we have been pressing for access for many, many months. Of course, the sort of actions my hon. Friend describes are a breach of international humanitarian law.

Phillip Lee: Does the Secretary of State agree that mobile Army surgical hospital units, which can be built in the UK, funded by DFID and deployed within 24 hours by
	our military, would be a further effective way of Britain providing humanitarian support to the people of Syria and the surrounding region?

Justine Greening: I know that my hon. Friend has held an Adjournment debate on this subject. Clearly, in Syria we are seeking to provide medical support, and although his idea may not be appropriate for Syria, it does have potential applicability for other humanitarian crises.

Tom Clarke: The Secretary of State will be aware that the number of Syrian refugees who have reached the Lebanon is now about 1 million. What is her Department doing in support of local non-governmental organisations as they respond to educational and other vital needs?

Justine Greening: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I was in Lebanon last week and as part of that visit I went to a local school that is now running a double shift. I spoke to the head teacher, who is now having to run a school which not only educates Lebanese children in the morning, but educates Syrian children in the afternoon. Part of that trip saw me announce funding for textbooks for 300,000 children at public school in Lebanon, including Syrian children. It is incredibly important that countries such as the UK work with countries such as Lebanon, not only to help the Syrian refugees directly, but to help host communities cope.

Jim Murphy: I wish to return to an earlier supplementary question. There is a general welcome for UK financial support for Syrian refugees, but of course there is growing concern about the Government’s refusal to admit any of the refugees to the UK. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many other countries have said yes? How it can be right that the British Government continue to say no when countries and nations as diverse as the United States, Moldova and even the new hard-line Government in Australia are willing to do the right thing?

Justine Greening: The UK is playing a leading role in helping the refugees from Syria. We are the third largest grantee of asylum to Syrian refugees in the European Union, after Germany and Sweden. It is wrong to suggest that we are not playing a leading role, because we are. Ultimately, all countries decide the form that their support will take and we have chosen a broad-based support which has helped millions of people in Syria. I very much hope that other EU member states can step up to the plate more fully in giving financial backing to the UN’s appeal, which was announced in Kuwait last week.

Jim Murphy: Surely it is not an issue of money or refugees; surely those are not mutually exclusive. The UK aid charities are right when they ask
	“how can we call on Syria’s neighbours to keep their borders open to refugees if we keep our own under lock and key?”
	We are talking about torture victims and children who have lost both their parents. I think it is likely that, over time, the Government will change their position on this, so can the Secretary of State at least confirm that she is willing to enter into discussions about detailed plans
	with the United Nations? Otherwise, despite the financial generosity, the UK will be seen by some refugees as shrill and unwelcoming.

Justine Greening: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, the Home Secretary has already responded to the UN in relation to the issues that he has just raised. We will continue to look at what we can do to support the refugees. It would be wrong for anybody to say anything other than that the UK has played a leading role in the extent, the co-ordination and, latterly, the shaping of our support, in particular focusing it on helping children affected by the crisis.

Malcolm Bruce: With a contribution of £600 million, the Government are probably the lead contributor to humanitarian relief, but does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is concern that if there is not a solution to this crisis in the coming 12 months, there will not be enough resources in the world to meet humanitarian crises elsewhere? It is absolutely imperative that everything is done to try to achieve a situation in which we can sustain the support.

Justine Greening: Ultimately, we need a political solution to move forward in Syria, which is why the Geneva II talks are so important. We all hope that we can see progress there, but nobody underestimates the challenges.

Eilidh Whiteford: May I press the Secretary of State on the refugee issue? Millions of people have been displaced from their homes, and it is only right that the UK takes its share of those refugees and gives sanctuary under its international obligations. I urge the Secretary of State to make the UK Government do the right thing.

Justine Greening: I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have absolutely played a leading role in Europe in accepting asylum-seeking Syrians. When I go into the region and talk directly to refugees—I have done that on many occasions now—they are clear that they want the chance to go back home to Syria. That hope of going home is precisely why, having moved across the border into Jordan and Lebanon, they have stayed in the camps in those communities.

James Gray: There must be occasions in international affairs when compassion trumps all other political and policy considerations. Surely there are echoes of the Kindertransport here. Surely we can find a place in our hearts for just a small number of these terribly tortured and disaffected Syrian children. Surely we can find room for them in the United Kingdom—just a few of them, just anything. Please say yes.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to show that level of compassion for those children who have been so badly affected by this crisis. I can reassure him that the UK is playing a leading role in the area of broad humanitarian support. As he will be aware, we were instrumental in setting up the “no lost generation” initiative with UNICEF. We are now UNICEF’s largest bilateral donor, which shows that we work directly with children.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are many Syrian refugees living all over the UK, including in my constituency. One came to see me recently with a tragic story of how her family were unable to get cancer treatment. Obviously that was because of the impact on medical services in that country. What assessment has she made of the availability of medical care across the spectrum as a result of the conflicts?

Justine Greening: We have been involved in providing medical support both outside Syria, to refugees in the region, and inside Syria. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are now a quarter of a million people living in besieged towns and cities with no access to medical supplies. The situation is dire.

Global Partnership for Education

Mark Williams: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of UK support to the Global Partnership for Education.

Lynne Featherstone: The UK is currently the largest donor to the Global Partnership for Education, providing on average £50 million per year from 2012 to 2014. GPE estimates that in 2012 its funding supported around 4.5 million children in primary school, 1.3 million of whom with DFID support.

Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the Government’s leading role in the Global Partnership for Education, which has done so much to fulfil the entitlement of all children to have an education and is now turning its sights to the quality of education through teacher training. Given the Government’s strong support for it, what plans does she have to champion the GP’s replenishment this year and to encourage other donors to come forward?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to his work and interest in this area. The UK is currently the largest bilateral donor to basic education. That is the sector in which aid is now declining. We strongly encourage other donors to step up to the plate alongside us, as well as mother countries themselves. We will determine our plans for support to the GP based on the case they make for replenishment. We will use that as a basis for—

Mr Speaker: We are deeply grateful to the Minister. We are immensely obliged to the Minister, but we have quite a lot to get through.

Seema Malhotra: The Global Partnership for Education estimates that 50% of children who are out of school live in conflict-affected areas. Will the Minister say a little more about the discussions she has had with the Global Partnership for Education about how the UK can further support work to reduce disruption to education in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan?

Lynne Featherstone: DFID takes a strong lead in education in conflict areas and we talk with all our partners about how best to deliver. The GPE is particularly important, as it has particular expertise in delivering in such situations.

Save the Children

David Davies: How much funding her Department provides to Save the Children annually.

Lynne Featherstone: In financial year 2012-13, DFID provided £55 million to Save the Children for its international humanitarian and long-term development work. During 2013, additional funding was agreed for Save the Children’s response to humanitarian crisis, including projects in Syria, the Philippines and the Central African Republic.

David Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that an organisation receiving so much Government money has a duty to remain non-political and that tweeting insults about Lady Thatcher and implied criticisms of Government education policy suggests that Save the Children and its Labour spin doctor chief executive have a lot more work to do in that regard?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, but I do not quite share his position. DFID does not provide funding for political lobbying activities. Save the Children works to save children’s lives and does an extremely good job. It also fights for children’s rights. In pursuing those laudable social aims, of course it engages legitimately with politicians and political processes in the UK and internationally.

Gregory Campbell: What progress is being made along with Save the Children in trying to promote literacy skills among young females in many of the nation states where Save the Children operates?

Lynne Featherstone: DFID has a number of great literacy programmes across all states. It works very closely with Save the Children and funds a great many of its projects.

Bangladesh: Elections

Nick de Bois: What assessment her Department has made of the implications for its development programmes of recent elections in Bangladesh.

Alan Duncan: We are watching events carefully in Bangladesh following the recent elections. We have no intention of rushing into any decisions and have not cancelled any existing programmes.

Nick de Bois: Does the Minister agree that much money from his Department is put to good use but that investment in encouraging democracy among the people is wasted when the leaders seem not to wish to practise it?

Alan Duncan: It is true that the state of politics in Bangladesh leaves a lot to be desired. It does not, however, mean that our efforts are wasted. We do not give any direct funding to political parties, but we work with parliamentary Committees, particularly the Public Accounts Committee, to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, much of which is done through non-governmental organisations.

Keith Vaz: May I urge the Minister, whatever the outcome or conduct of the elections, to continue with our programme of helping and working with NGOs in Bangladesh?

Alan Duncan: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The outcome of the elections is largely clear, albeit that there has been a lot of recrimination. We are careful not to give direct-budget support to a Government in the face of such controversy, but we are giving sectoral support, for instance in education, and we will continue to work, largely through NGOs, to deliver the good work that DFID does in that country.

Martin Horwood: The worrying situation in Bangladesh underlines the links between development and stability and looks like a good candidate for support from the new conflict, stability and security fund that the Government are establishing. Will DFID be centrally involved in setting priorities for that fund and ensuring that the links between development and stability are reinforced?

Alan Duncan: We are fully involved in the new fund, which will replace the conflict pool from 2015, and we have worked very closely with the apparatus of the National Security Council to ensure that everything DFID does is fully aligned with the broader judgments of other Departments across Whitehall in this area.

Topical Questions

Bob Blackman: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Since the last session of DFID questions, I have announced a further £100 million in new funding at the Syria pledging conference in Kuwait, bringing our total funding to £600 million. That included announcing funding with Islamic Relief for education programmes helping children into education in Jordan. Last Friday, the private Member’s Bill on gender equality promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) successfully passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. My Department is also focused on our humanitarian responses in South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

Bob Blackman: There is clear evidence that organisations operating in Palestine with UK taxpayers’ money are responsible for inciting hatred and violence against the Israeli people. What action has my right hon. Friend taken either to persuade those organisations to desist from that iniquitous practice or to withdraw UK taxpayers’ money?

Justine Greening: We take all those issues incredibly seriously. The UK deplores all incitement to violence, which we raise with both sides and with our partner organisations whenever allegations are made. We believe that President Abbas is committed to non-violence and peace, and DFID funding to the Palestinian Authority funds the salaries of an approved list of civil servants.

Alison McGovern: On Monday, Catherine Samba-Panza was elected as interim President of the Central African Republic, and she has spoken encouragingly of reconciling the different groups in the country, but the threat of serious conflict remains. The new Government will need significant support, so will the Secretary of State say more about what help the UK is planning to help avert conflict and serious humanitarian disaster?

Lynne Featherstone: Obviously, the situation remains fragile. We welcome the fact that there is now a leader who wants to take things forward. The UK pledged a total of £15 million—we are one of the largest donors to the Central African Republic—and we stand ready, should more requests be made, to listen to them and provide all possible help that we can give.

Glyn Davies: South Sudan won independence with great hopes of democracy and freedom, but it has collapsed into near civil war. Will the Minister tell us what steps she has taken to help deal with the humanitarian crisis in that country? [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. Ministers can scarcely hear the questions. I appeal to the House to lower the decibel level. The Leader of the House is nodding in assent to my proposition, which is encouraging.

Lynne Featherstone: The situation in South Sudan is extremely worrying, and we support the mediation led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. We have given £12.5 million, and £60 million in DFID programmes has been switched to humanitarian assistance. We were hopeful earlier in the week that there might be a cessation of hostilities, but that faint hope has now faded.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assessment her Department has made of the health benefits to the poorest people in low and middle-income countries from UK aid to pro-profit health care providers?

Justine Greening: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the UK has a variety of health-related programmes. We always focus on value for money, and I am happy to write to her with further details of the portfolio and of how we look at value for money across the piece.

David Ward: On Monday, many of us will attend Holocaust memorial day events. The theme is journeys, including journeys of return. Does the Secretary of State agree with me
	that our thoughts should include, among many others, the millions of displaced Palestinians still denied their right to return to their homes?

Alan Duncan: The right of return is of course part of the negotiations that continue as part of the middle east peace process. We fully support the efforts of Secretary Kerry and of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in everything that they are doing, and we want to do all we can to underpin the best prospects for a successful conclusion, which are predicted to occur by the end of April.

Pat Glass: How certain is the Minister that the TradeMark East Africa project is having—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the House—it really is the height of discourtesy. The hon. Lady wishes to be heard, I wish to hear her, and the Minister needs to hear her.

Pat Glass: How certain is the Minister that the TradeMark East Africa project is having a positive impact on poverty reduction?

Justine Greening: This is an important project that is working in east Africa to remove many of the barriers to trade that hold back that region. We continue to assess the project, and our assessment is that it is working well. We will continue to look at it as it moves forward. If any project is bad value for money, we stop it.

Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update on the international humanitarian pledging conference held in Kuwait last week? Will she share with the House her assessment of the impact of the humanitarian need in Syria?

Justine Greening: It is always a pleasure to have a question from my right hon. Friend. We had a very successful pledging conference in Kuwait. The UK pledged £100 million and it raised £2.4 billion in total, which will provide vital humanitarian support to the Syrian crisis.

Rushanara Ali: Several people have been killed and hundreds of civilians displaced in Burma recently in Rakhine state. What representation has the Secretary of State made about greater humanitarian access to internally displaced persons, especially the Rohingya persecuted minority?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this incredibly important question, which we pursue through our Foreign Office with the Burmese regime. She will be aware that we have put in significant humanitarian support, particularly focused on internally displaced people in the region.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having just returned from the Nizip-2 Syrian refugee camp where the conditions were quite good, I pay tribute to
	the Secretary of State’s Department for what it is doing there, but what is my right hon. Friend doing to make sure that some of the other camps in front-line countries are as good as that one?

Justine Greening: I thank my hon. Friend for the amazing trip that I know he had during the last couple of weeks to Turkey and the social action projects in the camp there. He is right to raise the issue of conditions in the camps. The UK works with UN agencies to ensure that they are as good as they possibly can be.

Julie Elliott: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that none of the aid given to Belarus from the European Commission is used for state-sponsored oppression?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady will know that the aid to Belarus was transferred under the multi-annual financial framework, which was agreed under the last Government. This Government have tightened that up to make sure that fewer middle-income countries such as Belarus will receive aid in the future.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen Timms: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 January.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to Del Singh and to Simon Chase who were tragically killed in Kabul on Sunday in a cowardly terrorist attack. Both were there to support the Afghan Government and to improve the lives of the Afghan people. Del Singh was a friend to many in the House and had given so much time and dedication to troubled regions across the world. Our thoughts should be with their families and friends at this very difficult time.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Cameron: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stephen Timms: I would like to associate myself with the condolences that the Prime Minister expressed on behalf of the whole House.
	The Trussell Trust co-ordinates the fast-growing network, now numbering some 400, of church-based food banks, which between them provided food for half a million people, just between April and December last year. Will the Prime Minister be willing to meet representatives of the Trussell Trust to discuss the big challenges with which they are grappling?

David Cameron: I would be happy to meet them. We have listened carefully to the Trussell Trust. One thing that it wanted to see done by this Government and the previous Government was to allow food banks
	to be promoted in jobcentres. We have allowed that to happen. That has increased the use of food banks, but it is important to do the right thing rather than something that might just seem politically convenient.

Nick de Bois: The Prime Minister is aware of the tragic case of a two-year-old boy taken to Chase Farm urgent care centre at 3 am for the emergency care he needed. But despite the best efforts of a senior nurse and the paramedics who took him to North Middlesex hospital he was tragically pronounced dead at 4 am. I know that we cannot comment on the case until a full report is published, but does he agree that the effect of reconfigurations, often put through despite local opposition, including from myself, is that we are asking people to decide where to go for help at moments of great personal stress? Does he further agree that we must do more to explain the choices to help them decide? On publication of the report, will he meet me to see whether lessons can be learned and changes made?

David Cameron: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. This is an absolutely tragic case. I offer my deepest sympathies to Hashir’s family. Anyone who has taken a desperately ill child to hospital in the middle of the night when the child is at risk knows what an incredibly desperate time it can be. I understand that the hospital is carrying out a full and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances around that poor child’s death. I have asked the Health Secretary to discuss the findings of the investigation with my hon. Friend once it is completed. We must ensure that everything is done to avoid these terrible incidents happening in future.

Edward Miliband: I want to start by paying tribute to the two British nationals, Simon Chase and Del Singh, who were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan. Simon Chase had served Britain in the Army, and my condolences go to all his family and friends. Del Singh was one of Labour’s European candidates, and one of the most decent people one could ever hope to meet. He was an international development worker who dedicated his life to helping people across the world, and we all grieve with his family.
	Recent reports of the murder of thousands of innocent civilians by the regime in Syria are a reminder of the horror unfolding there. We all hope for significant progress from today’s talks. Last month the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I made a joint statement about the plight of Syrian refugees, which welcomed the Government’s leadership in the aid programme. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has also called on Britain to be part of a programme to help resettle a small number of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. Eighteen countries are part of that programme, but so far Britain is not among them. Does the Prime Minister not agree that we should be?

David Cameron: First, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on just how dreadful the news is that has come out of Syria in recent days, with allegations of torture and worse. I think that we are fulfilling our moral obligations to the people of Syria. We are the
	second largest bilateral aid donor. The money that British taxpayers are providing is providing food, shelter, water and medicine for literally hundreds of thousands of people.
	We are also fulfilling all our obligations in terms of asylum seekers. We have taken over 1,000 asylum seekers from Syria in recent months. We are also making sure that when we can help very vulnerable children who are ill, including a child who is in a British hospital today, we take action as well. I do not believe that we can solve a refugee crisis of this scale, with almost half of Syria’s population of 9 million either displaced or at risk of displacement, with a quota system by which countries are taking a few hundreds refugees. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if there are very difficult cases of people who do not belong in refugee camps who either have been disabled by the dreadful attacks or are in very difficult circumstances, I am happy for us to look at that argument. Britain always plays the right role in these desperate humanitarian crises.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Let me make just a few points in reply, because this is an important issue. First, we all agree on the leadership that this Government have shown in relation to Syrian aid, and I pay tribute to him, the International Development Secretary and others. On the point about asylum seekers, they are of course the people who have been able to get here, but we are talking about the people who are in the refugee camps at the moment. On his point about whether this can solve the problem, of course it cannot, but the UN is talking about a small number of the most vulnerable people, including children who have lost their parents and victims of torture. I was somewhat encouraged by the end of the Prime Minister’s answer. We are all proud of Britain’s tradition of taking refugees. Why does he not look at it again, say that Britain will participate in the programme, take just a few hundred refugees and, indeed, set an example?

David Cameron: I do not think that there is a disagreement between us. The problem I see—[Interruption.] Let me explain. The problem I see is that some countries are using the quota system as a way of saying, “Therefore, I have fulfilled my obligations.” When almost half of the population of 9 million is at risk of displacement, the fact that the Finns, the French or the Swedes will take a few hundred people is not fulfilling their obligations, whereas the massive amount of aid that Britain is putting forward—the second largest in the world—is playing the most important role. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that there are individual cases that we should be looking at, and I am happy to look at those arguments and issues, but let us not pretend that a small quota system can solve the problem of Syrian refugees.

Edward Miliband: I do feel we are gradually inching forward on this issue. Let me be clear about this. It must not be an excuse for failing to provide aid—of course it must not—but we are not talking about either providing aid or taking vulnerable refugees; we are talking about doing both. Given the Prime Minister’s reasonable tone, will he now open discussions with the United Nations about Britain making its contribution to this programme? I think colleagues in all parts of the House want this to happen; will he now say he will do so?

David Cameron: I have made this very clear. We are prepared to listen to the arguments about how we can help the most vulnerable people in those refugee camps. Just to correct the right hon. Gentleman, some of the countries that are participating include in their quotas both asylum numbers and refugee numbers, which is not the argument we should be making. Let me be absolutely clear: Britain is leading the world in terms of humanitarian aid in Syria; we should be proud of that. We are fulfilling our obligations on asylum claims, and we should be proud that we give a home to those who flee torture and persecution. Where there are extreme hardship cases, we should look at those again. That is the approach that we should take. I think there should be all-party support for it, and I think Britain can be proud of the role that we are playing.

Edward Miliband: I hope that the Prime Minister will take this away and, as I say, open discussions with the United Nations—[Interruption.] I do not think hon. Members should groan on this issue; I really do not. We know that Britain can make more of a contribution on this specific issue and I hope he will open discussions.
	I want to move on to another subject. Today’s welcome fall in unemployment is good for the people concerned—[Interruption.] We welcome the fall in unemployment because whenever an individual gets back into work it is good for them and good for their family. [Interruption.] I have to say to hon. Members that just braying like that does not do anybody any good. Can the Prime Minister confirm that today’s figures also show that average wages are down by £1,600 a year since the election, meaning that for many ordinary families life is getting harder?

David Cameron: It is worth pausing for a moment over what these statistics show today. They show youth unemployment coming down, long-term unemployment coming down, the claimant count coming down, and unemployment overall coming down—but above all, what we see today is the biggest ever quarterly increase in the number of people in work in our country. There should not be one ounce of complacency—there is still a huge amount of work to do to get Britain back to work—but there are 280,000 more people in work: that is 280,000 more people with the security of a regular pay packet coming in for themselves and their family. Now of course we are seeing a slow growth in wages—why? Because we are recovering from the longest and deepest recession in living memory. Because the Leader of the Opposition keeps quoting the figure without the tax cuts that we have put in place, he is not recognising that actually this year people are better off because we have controlled spending and cut taxes.

Edward Miliband: All the Prime Minister has done is show that he is absolutely complacent about the situation, because he is trying to tell millions of families around this country that they are better off when they know they are worse off, and it does not help for him to tell them the opposite. Let me take this figure: in Britain today, there are 13 million people living in poverty—that is a shocking figure. What is scandalous is that for the first time ever the majority of those people are living not in jobless families but in working families. What is his explanation for that?

David Cameron: The explanation is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, which is that wages have increased much less quickly than inflation. As I say, that is not surprising. We have had the biggest recession in 100 years. It would be astonishing if household incomes had not fallen and earnings had not fallen. The fact is that we are recovering from the mess that Labour left us. Every week the Leader of the Opposition comes here and raises a new problem that he created. We had the betting problem, then we had the banking problem, then we had the deficit problem, and now we have the cost of living problem. He is like an arsonist who goes round setting fire after fire and then complains when the fire brigade are not putting out the fires fast enough. Why does he not start with an apology for the mess that he left us?

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister comes here every week and does his Bullingdon club routine, and all he shows is that he has absolutely no understanding of the lives of people up and down this country. That is the reality: ordinary families are working harder for longer for less; he is cutting taxes for millionaires and not helping those families; and the minimum wage is falling in value. He cannot be the solution to the cost of living crisis, because he just does not understand the problem.

David Cameron: We are cutting taxes for everyone in our country, and we are able to do that only because we have controlled spending. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot face is the fact that the economy is improving. For months, the Opposition told us to listen to the IMF. Remember that? We had five tweets in one month from the shadow Chancellor: “Listen to the IMF”. Now the IMF is telling us, “The economy is growing. Stick to the plan. Unemployment is going down”—not a word.
	We should remember that the Leader of the Opposition predicted 1 million more unemployed; we got 1 million more in work. He predicted the deficit would go up; the deficit is coming down. The fact is today our plan is working. There are 1.3 million more people in work in our country, which is 1.3 million more people with the security of a regular pay packet. We are securing Britain’s future, and it would be put at risk by Labour.

Duncan Hames: The systematic torture and killing of 11,000 people detained by the Syrian state is surely a war crime. As there can be no lasting peace without justice, will the Prime Minister resist conceding any immunity from prosecution for war crimes at the Geneva II talks that start today, so that the next time a tyrant turns on his own people the deterrent of international law is not muffled?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Britain is actually going further than that by making sure that we play our role not just in the humanitarian crisis that we have discussed, but in collecting evidence about war crimes so that people can be held to account for the dreadful things that they have done.

Steve Reed: Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Stevens and the Home Secretary that stop-and-search needs reform, or does his fear of Nigel Farage mean that he will block it?

David Cameron: Stop-and-search does need reform. The report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary shows that in 27% of cases the police have not followed their own guidance on stop-and-search, so we do need to reform stop-and-search. If it is necessary to legislate, we will legislate; if it is not, we will not. What is really important is that stop-and-search is used properly, and that we do not add to the burdens of the police.

Neil Parish: The Government’s roll-out of rural broadband will double the number of homes and businesses that receive broadband from 40% to 80%, but 17% of people will still be left without full fast broadband. Will the Government work with me to deliver that extra 20%, because it is very much part of our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those of us who represent rural communities, broadband is not just part of the economic plan but an absolutely vital part, because without that connectivity small businesses and entrepreneurs in our constituencies will not be able to benefit. We have seen massive investment go into broadband; we will shortly set out our plans for the £250 million announced in June to extend superfast broadband coverage to 95% of the UK by 2017; and we are now connecting up tens of thousands of homes and businesses every week—all progress that was not made under the Labour Government.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Prime Minister accept that the remarks of the Irish Foreign Minister about the Haass talks and the possibility of some kind of intervention by his Government are deeply unhelpful, that the vast majority of the issues at stake in the Haass talks are internal to Northern Ireland and are matters for the parties in Northern Ireland to engage and agree on, that there can be no question of an imposed solution and that the most helpful thing the Irish Government could do about the past is to be more forthcoming about the role of the state authorities in collusion with the IRA?

David Cameron: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no question of an imposed solution. The proposal for the Haass discussions was a proposal of the Northern Ireland parties themselves. I obviously wish this process well. I think Haass did a good job in providing the architecture of a future solution on parades, flags and the past. I hope the parties can come together and continue the work. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary will do what she can to help to facilitate that work. I think it is important to go on discussing this with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. They have taken steps themselves to come to terms with some of the things that happened in their past. If the parties work together, and if the British and Irish Governments are there to help, I hope we can make some progress.

Simon Kirby: I am incredibly proud to represent a large gay community in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the views of some, the weather in Brighton is nearly always very sunny?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is quite right that Brighton has a superb microclimate that people should be encouraged to take advantage of. He stands up for all his constituents with great vim and vigour. In reward, it would only be fair if Brighton, Kemptown was put in the shipping forecast somewhere between Dover and Wight, so that we had a reflection of that every morning.

Phil Wilson: Hitachi Rail Europe and Gestamp are working with Sunderland university to establish a university technical college in my constituency. That has the support of the Department for Transport. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will support the college and ensure that the decision on the bid is taken quickly, so that employers and young people can acquire the skills that they need?

David Cameron: I am a great supporter of university technical colleges. They are providing a really good new set of schools for our country that focus on vocational training and education. The announcement of the new college last week was welcome news. It will open its doors in 2017. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.

Christopher Pincher: Voyage Care and Igloo are just two of the companies that have set up shop recently in my constituency, bringing hundreds of new jobs to an area where long-term unemployment has fallen by 35% and youth unemployment by 40%. Will my right hon. Friend commend the good sense of those companies for coming to Tamworth, encourage more to do the same and consider visiting Tamworth so that he can see for himself how our long-term economic plan is delivering results?

David Cameron: I am always happy to visit Tamworth and spend time in the shadow of Sir Robert Peel. I have enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency in the past. We are seeing a recovery, particularly in jobs and getting people off the unemployment register. It is worth noting that today’s figures also show that full-time employment is up by 220,000, compared with just a 60,000 increase in part-time employment. That shows that people are getting the full-time jobs that they want. I am happy to commend the businesses he is welcoming to Tamworth.

Russell Brown: The green shoots of economic recovery are not being realised across the entire UK. Does he intend to speak to the Governor of the Bank of England to make him aware that, in low-wage economy areas, any increase in inflation would undoubtedly have a devastating impact on many households?

David Cameron: We of course want to secure a recovery in every region of our county and in every nation of our United Kingdom. Employment in Scotland went up by 10,000 in the last quarter and there are 90,000 more people in work than there were a year ago, so progress is being made and the Scottish economy is performing. We should do everything we can to make that happen. Whether we keep interest rates down is a matter for the Bank of England. Our role must be to
	continue the work that we are doing to get the deficit down. In doing that, we have to make difficult decisions on spending. We are not helped by the fact that, of all the difficult decisions we have made, not one has been supported by the Labour party.

David Davies: The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we learn lessons from the Labour Welsh Assembly Government on how to run public services. Given that Wales has seen cuts to the NHS budget and has the worst education system in the UK, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only lesson that we can learn from it is that those who care about public services should vote Conservative?

David Cameron: It is possible to look closely at the decisions that the Labour Government have taken in Wales and at the effect of those decisions. They have not followed our approach of protecting spending on the NHS. There has been an 8% cut to the NHS budget in Wales. As a result, they have not met an A and E target since 2009. Like my hon. Friend, I also worry about some of the changes that have been made to education in Wales, because we want all children in our country to get the benefits that come from good basics in education, proper tests and proper league tables.

Ann McKechin: This weekend, Nigel Wilson, the chief executive of Legal & General, one of our biggest financial companies, urged the Government to abandon their Help to Buy scheme in London to prevent house prices from spiralling out of control. Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Wilson that we should instead use the money to build new homes across the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: We are building homes across the United Kingdom, but one better than what she suggests is what we have done, which is to give the power to the Bank of England to advise specifically on any potential problems in the housing market, or, indeed, in any other market. We have cleared up the mess of the regulatory system we were left by the Labour party, so that proper warnings can be given in proper time.

Mark Pawsey: Under the Labour Government, manufacturing was neglected and the sector halved in size. With this Government investing in manufacturing excellence at the Manufacturing Technology Centre in my constituency, and with the success of companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Rolls-Royce in important export markets, does the Prime Minister agree that a resurgent manufacturing sector is part of this Government’s long-term plan for the economy?

David Cameron: Rebalancing our economy is absolutely part of our long-term economic plan. We want to see a balanced recovery—balanced between manufacturing and services, and properly balanced between north and south—and make sure that we win back jobs and orders from overseas. Companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Rolls-Royce have the full backing and support of the Government: they have investment going into apprenticeship schemes, which are helping them;
	we have reformed UK Trade & Investment, so we can help them sell around the world; we are doing everything we can to encourage them to bring jobs back into the UK; and manufacturing exports and investment are responding well.

Michael McCann: As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, sorry is still the hardest word to say, but does the Prime Minister agree that Alex Salmond owes the people of Scotland an apology for a White Paper—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to Members on both sides of the House that this is supposed to be questions to the Prime Minister, not a Punch and Judy show.

Michael McCann: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree that Alex Salmond owes the people of Scotland an apology for a White Paper that dodges the tough questions and does not explain that by adopting the pound interest rates will go up, because Scotland’s lender of last resort will be a foreign bank?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The White Paper, which we were told would answer all questions, has actually left all the most important questions—on the future of the currency, on Scotland’s place in the European Union, on the future of defence jobs and on the future financial services—unanswered. I think that that is why Mr Salmond is struggling to get his argument across.

Robert Smith: We can currently celebrate record investment in North sea oil and gas production and all the jobs that they support but we have to recognise the growing concern at the lack of exploration. Will the Prime Minister therefore recommit the Government to their tax stability policy to encourage as much exploration as possible and ensure future investment?

David Cameron: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is very important that we make the most out of the asset that is the North sea. That is what the Wood report is all about, and we are putting those proposals in place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will listen very carefully to what he says about ensuring that the tax system encourages maximum recovery in the long term.

Emma Reynolds: Del Singh was an extraordinary person: a warm and generous friend, and a passionate campaigner for peace and justice. He dedicated his life to working for those in need in areas of conflict, including in Afghanistan. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, after the drawdown of troops this year, the work of people such as Del Singh will continue to be supported by this Government?

David Cameron: I very much share what the hon. Lady said about Del Singh. It reminds us of the risks that aid workers take on our behalf to deliver vital assistance around the world. I can give her the assurance she seeks. It is very important for everyone to recognise that, while our troops are coming home at the end of
	2014, our commitment to Afghanistan will continue: not just our commitment to its armed forces but, with more than $100 million a year, out commitment to its aid and future development. We will need many more brave people such as Del Singh to go on working with the Afghan Government to deliver for the Afghan people.

Jonathan Lord: Formula 1 team McLaren is the largest employer in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating it on the hundreds of new jobs it is creating locally, on the global sell-out of its P1 sports car and on the £50 million of exports it will achieve this year in China? Surely these are yet more examples of the success of British business and of our long-term economic plan.

David Cameron: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for McLaren and the work of Ron Dennis, who helpfully brought one of his cars to our great meeting in China on encouraging investment into the UK. Of course, this is the very highest end of British motor manufacturing, but it is worth recognising that a vehicle rolls off a British production line every 20 seconds. The British motor industry is doing well, this Government are backing it and long may that continue.

Andy Slaughter: May I also thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind words about my friend Del Singh, who devoted his too-short life to working for peace and justice, not least in Palestine and Afghanistan?
	The number of new affordable home starts has fallen by a third since 2010. Why is that? Is it in part because Tory councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, are demolishing council homes—the most affordable type of housing—and selling the land for exclusively private development?

David Cameron: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The number of housing starts is 89% higher than the trough Labour left us in 2009. We have already delivered more than 100,000 affordable homes and will deliver 170,000 in total by 2015, and the rate of affordable house building will soon be the highest it has been for two decades, which is a massive contrast with Labour, under which housing waiting lists almost doubled. If he does not believe me, he might want to listen to this quotation—and guess who it is from:
	“We refused to prioritise the building of new social housing”.
	Who said that? Anyone? It was the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you very much.

Damian Hinds: May I commend the Prime Minister for his firm action against unscrupulous payday lenders and for driving the credit union expansion project? Will he now urge more employers to consider partnering with their local credit union so that many more people can access affordable credit and convenient savings direct through the payroll?

David Cameron: I commend my hon. Friend for his consistent campaigning and speaking out on this issue. We are taking the tough action needed on payday
	lending, but, as he says, the positive side of this is that we need to expand credit unions faster, and we should be looking at all the ways that can be done, including through other organisations partnering with credit unions and encouraging their work.

Huw Irranca-Davies: A report on the food aid crisis in the UK was commissioned by the Government last February, was given to Ministers early last summer, and yet is still being suppressed. What is the Prime Minister afraid of, and why does he not now publish and be damned?

David Cameron: What the Government are publishing today is the fact that hundreds of thousands more people are getting into work and able to provide for their families and get the peace of mind and security that people in this country want. That is what we are publishing today, and that is real progress for our nation.

Robert Halfon: Some 45% of people do not pay their utility bills by direct debit, and 1 million of them do not have bank accounts, yet energy companies charge, on average, £115 extra for people who do not pay by direct debit, hitting pensioners and the poorest the most. Will my right hon. Friend look into this, given that the Government are doing everything possible by cutting energy bills by £50?

David Cameron: I am certainly happy to look into this issue. We have taken steps to compel the energy companies to put people on the lowest tariffs, and we want to ensure that everyone can take advantage of that. As my hon. Friend said, we have also cut energy bills by £50 by rolling back the cost of some of the green measures, and we should continue to make this market more competitive, to give more choice to consumers and to encourage switching, which happened a huge amount towards the end of last year and has saved many people many hundreds of pounds.

BILL PRESENTED

Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by Mr John Leech, Katy Clark, John McDonnell, Grahame M. Morris, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Margaret Ritchie, presented a Bill to promote public ownership of public services; to introduce a presumption in favour of service provision by public sector and not-for-profit entities; and to put in place mechanisms to increase the accountability, transparency and public control of public services, including those operated by private companies.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 160).

Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Matthew Offord: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use on dogs of any electronic collar designed administer an electric shock; and for connected purposes.
	It is claimed that the United Kingdom is a nation of animal lovers, so it is hard to imagine that we would show our affection for our pets by submitting them to electric shocks. However, it remains permissible under the law to sell and use electric shock collars on dogs, and it is believed that there are over 300,000 of such devices in use.
	Electric shock collars are worn around a dog’s neck and work either by a remote control with various settings that, when pressed, deliver an electric shock to a dog’s neck or by automatically delivering an electric shock to a dog when it barks. These collars are intended to train dogs to respond for of further punishment, with the dog receiving a shock when it does not perform what is asked of it, rather than out of a willingness to obey. This is not the type of training method that the Kennel Club endorses and certainly not a practice to which I would subject my Jack Russell, Maximus.
	The Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust take the view that unwanted behaviour in dogs is best resolved by positive training methods. As such, my Bill is designed to ban the use of electric shock collars as they are not appropriate devices. Scientific learning theory dictates that if a dog has a strong desire to indulge in what it believes is pleasurable behaviour, any negative training method employed to prevent this has to be far more unpleasant for them than their natural behaviour is pleasant—it has to be extremely aversive. If an action brings about a positive outcome for a dog, that action will be repeated, as it is perceived to be beneficial.
	Secondly, electronic training devices fail to address underlying behavioural problems in dogs, and seek to alter their behaviour by introducing a fear of further punishment rather than a willingness to obey. Any change in behaviour would result only from the dog perceiving the shock as painful. An electric shock collar hurts the animal because it has to; if it did not hurt, it would not work.
	Electronic training devices also cause further behavioural problems. Dogs have a natural in-built flight or fight response when put in a situation that causes pain and fear, meaning that they either do anything they can to get away from the source of pain or become aggressive in response. Shock collars can thus cause further behavioural problems in addition to the ones owners are attempting to control. As a dog will have no idea what caused the pain, it is far more likely to associate it with something in its immediate environment rather than with its behaviour at the time. This is why there are cases of dogs attacking other dogs, their owners or other animals close by at the time of the shock, as the dog develops “superstitious” fears to things in the environment that were heard or seen at the time of the shock.
	The most common defence for using electric shock collars is that they train dogs to stop chasing sheep. However, it is important to note that it is virtually impossible to use an electric shock collar to train a dog not to chase sheep. The theory behind the training method is that the dog will believe that the sheep gave it an electric shock and will thus not chase sheep again. Professional dog trainers claim, however, that success would be based on luck rather than judgment, as it is impossible to know at which level the collar should be set when the dog is near the sheep. In order for the dog to think the sheep shocked it, the trainer would have to wait until the dog was very near the sheep; otherwise, the dog would think the shock came from something else in its immediate environment. If the trainer waited until the dog was very close to the sheep and the setting of the collar was too low, there would be a high chance that the shock would not prevent the dog from worrying the sheep. Similarly, the collar could be set at the highest setting, but have no effect on the dog’s behaviour because the dog is already so aroused by chasing the sheep that it will continue to chase, no matter what shock it received.
	Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, a person in control of a dog worrying livestock on agricultural land is guilty of an offence. Under this Act, dogs must be kept on leads or under close control. In reality, dogs exercised near livestock should always be kept on leads—it is as simple as that; there should be no need for an electric shock collar. Other positive training tools and methods can produce dogs that are trained just as quickly and reliably—with absolutely no fear, pain or potential damage to the relationship between dog and handler.
	Police dogs, armed forces dogs and assistance dogs are never trained using electric shock training devices. On 2 December, the Minister responded to my parliamentary written question about what progress, following the publication of research funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, had been made on banning electric shock collars on dogs. Having acknowledged that
	“electronic training aids can have a negative impact on the welfare of some dogs”,
	the Minister added:
	“the evidence from these studies is not strong enough to support a ban under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Government therefore has no plans to ban such devices in England. However, we have asked the industry to draw up guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use e-collars properly and to develop a manufacturers’ charter to ensure any e-collars on sale are made to high standards.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 511W.]
	The findings of the recent publication of studies AW1402 and AW1402a greatly favour elimination of the use of electric shock collars. The first DEFRA project concluded that there was great variability in the way in which electric shock collars were used on dogs, and showed that owners tended not to read or follow the advice given in the instructions. The main conclusion was that there were significant negative welfare consequences for some of the dogs that had been trained with electric shock collars in the study.
	The second study was on electric shock collars on dogs by trained professionals according to industry standards. The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association was asked to design the training protocol and to recommend industry-trained professionals to take part in the study.
	The research project concluded that there was enough evidence, in the form of both behavioural and psychological changes, to support the argument that the use of electric shock collars, even by industry-trained professionals, still had a negative impact on dog welfare.
	It therefore remains the view of the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the British Veterinary Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that electric shock collars are negative training devices which have a detrimental impact on dog welfare. My Bill would ban their use, which has already been banned in Wales, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Dr Matthew Offord, John Stevenson, Jim Fitzpatrick, Simon Wright, Zac Goldsmith, Mr David Amess, Martin Caton, Joan Walley, Andrew Rosindell and Mr John Baron present the Bill.
	Dr Matthew Offord accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February and to be printed (Bill 159).

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 3 September 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme) and 8 October 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme (No. 2)).
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	3. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments to clause 2, amendments to schedule 1, amendments to schedule 2, remaining amendments to part 1 Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments 
			 Amendments to clause 26, amendments to schedule 3, amendments to clauses 27 to 32, amendments to schedule 4, remaining amendments to part 2, amendments to part 4, remaining amendments to the Bill Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	5. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	6. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Tom Brake.)

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

[Relevant documents: Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Government’s lobbying Bill: follow up, HC 891.]
	Consideration of Lords amendments

Mr Speaker: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 13, 14, 88 and 100. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Meaning of consultant lobbying

Graham Allen: I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1, and Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu.
	Lords amendments 2 to 4, 101 to 103, 5 and 6.
	Lords amendment 7, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 8 to 15.

Graham Allen: I am delighted to initiate the debate.
	The Bill has a chequered history as regards Parliament’s involvement in it so far, which, I am sorry to say, has demonstrated in spades the contempt that the Executive have for the legislature. I would like to expand on that just a little before I get into the detail of the amendments.
	The contempt started when this Bill first came to the House, and is continuing to the very end of the process without relenting. We started this Bill having had some pre-legislative scrutiny of what we all called the lobbying Bill, only to find that one day before the summer recess a mega-Bill was presented, two thirds of which had not even seen the light of day in public let alone been discussed, analysed or subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by this House. That is our job, but we were prevented from doing our job because this Bill was presented far too late in the day, one day before a summer recess. Just to add insult to injury, it was then stuffed into the parliamentary sausage machine one week after we returned from the summer break.
	That story has been repeated throughout the passage of the Bill. One might have thought that, even if only for the sake of window-dressing, there would be the odd pause, the odd break, the odd extension, or a gap between consideration by their Lordships and this House, but not a bit of it. That demonstrates the way the Government treat this House, particularly when they have an embarrassment like this Bill in front of them.
	Mr Speaker is an authority on these matters and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that it was possible to have a shorter period between consideration
	yesterday in the second Chamber and consideration today in Parliament. Could the House have squeezed that period even more? Could we have met last night to discuss this?
	The Government had a pause in the other place, which I welcome. Six weeks is not wonderful and my Select Committee called for six months—we called for the job to be done properly. We were grateful for those six weeks, however, but there was no opportunity for colleagues in this House to consider what their Lordships had said and read it carefully, because, as we know, amendments were being made up to the very last moment in the second Chamber. None of us had that opportunity—Front-Benchers, colleagues who are interested in this issue and above all Back-Benchers, and, may I say, the Select Committee, which seeks to represent Back-Benchers and which has the legitimacy of being a Select Committee elected by Members from all parts of this House in a secret ballot, with a Chair elected by the whole House. Despite that legitimacy, none of us was allowed to see any paperwork or the Order Paper after that consideration in the second Chamber yesterday. It is an absolute disgrace, and it cannot be allowed to continue if we are to have any reputation in this House for doing our job on accountability and scrutiny effectively.

Eilidh Whiteford: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the process of this Bill and congratulate him and his Committee on the tremendous job they have done in turning round a report overnight—and under huge pressure, I am quite sure. Does he agree that that pressure has extended not just to those of us in this place, but to those who will be directly affected by this in civil society, and who have also had to work overnight to analyse the Lords amendments and come back to us with their perspectives on them today?

Graham Allen: As there is no good will whatever from the Executive and there is no effective process for this House other than to be told what to do and have its agenda written for it on a daily basis by the Executive, then yes, we rely on the good will of other people. My Select Committee—a number of colleagues who serve on it are present—relies upon its Clerks, who have done an absolutely stunning job. My own Clerk was at the printers last night producing a report for Members of all parts of this House until gone 9 o’clock, and I sent that report to every Member of the House at 11.20 pm.
	Is this a trivial, pointless Bill or is it an important Bill? Is it appropriate that the Chair of a Select Committee is sending a report to Members of this House just before midnight for consideration the very next day? I do not think the Government have sent anything to Members, but they are asking their colleagues to walk through the Lobby on these issues. The way the House is being treated is outrageous—again. We can all get puffed up and annoyed by stuff, but this is serious. This is about the way in which the Bill will shape the next general election and how our charities and voluntary organisations will participate in our political life. This is not a trivial matter. It is not as though 95% of people vote—the numbers voting creep down ever lower. People say, “You’re not worth going out and voting for, any of you.” And then we do this.
	If this is the way we treat the important topic of lobbying—“the next big scandal”, as the Prime Minister called it—and thousands of individual charities, it speaks ill of this place and I think that we can do better.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments in opening the debate on these important amendments. He has rightly outlined the anger that is felt on this side of the House, by groups in civil society and by our constituents. I have been contacted by more than 100 of my constituents about the Bill and they are looking to this Chamber to make representations on their behalf about how they can participate in our democracy in the future. I see this process as an affront to our democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Graham Allen: It is a continuing affront to our democracy, and I hope that Ministers—and future Ministers—will take this to heart and consider how the process of effectively scrutinising legislation can be amended.
	I will now advertise another report by my Committee on the quality of legislation. It suggests, for example, mandatory pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills, apart from emergency ones. That is not from a desire to delay any legislation. I believe that in our form of democracy, the Government should get their business through. The contribution that Parliament makes is to ensure that legislation is more effective. Otherwise, we have to come back until we get it right—in this case, after the next general election. It does not save time to keep coming back to the House, as we did—infamously—on criminal justice Bills under the last Government, tinkering year after year and with Ministers getting the prestige of having a Bill before the House. Instead, Governments should listen to the House and get legislation closer to being right.
	I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that pressure from Back Benchers on both sides of the House will force our Front Benchers to agree a better process of involving Parliament in partnership with the Executive.

Bob Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman, whom I consider to be my friend, although technically he is not so in this House. I am grateful for all the work he, his Committee and the Clerks have done and the briefings they have sent us. I, too, am concerned about the shortage of time. How long does the hon. Gentleman think we should have had between the other place considering this matter and it coming before us?

Graham Allen: Given that the Government want to get the Bill implemented in order to influence the expenditure limits in the next general election, I do not maintain that it should be held over for months and months. Hon. Members may wish to read the report from my Select Committee, which we produced last night, starting at 6.30 pm, and which I delivered by e-mail to every Member just before midnight. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are prepared to say, “These guys are serious, and we should at least have a look at their report”, I suggest that we should have at least two days to read the papers and to table measured amendments.
	Thanks to the great assistance of the Clerks, I was able to table several amendments on behalf of my Committee last night, but I imagine that few hon.
	Members know their way around the Order Paper well enough to do that. The Table Office was open until 10 this morning, which means about two working hours for colleagues to read the report, listen to the Government, read the proceedings in the other place and decide whether to support an all-party view—as expressed in the report—and to table, as some have managed to do, their own amendments. The way that we conduct our business helps us to get better law. It means that what we produce will stand the test of time, rather than need reviewing or stitching back together when the gaps appear over the next few years.

Stephen Doughty: I add my thanks to those of hon. Members who have thanked my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee have done overnight. As a relatively new Member, I find it an extraordinary abuse of process for the Bill to be conducted in this way—I read the report at 12.15 last night, and I tried to do it justice, given the effort that had been made.
	Like many other hon. Members, I struggled to balance two or three other responsibilities this morning, including attending Committees, with doing justice to this extraordinary Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot go on in this way?

Graham Allen: Indeed. All parties are now, for the first time in a fixed-term Parliament, entering a prolonged discussion of policy and undertaking a manifesto process that will no longer take just 28 days and be decided only by party leaders. We will all have a chance to influence the process. If hon. Members care about Parliament, whatever their party, and want to make it relevant to the electorate, who hold us in contempt, I urge them to propose ways in which the House can make a contribution to our democratic process. We would all be stronger for that and start to win back some of the reputation that we have lost in recent years.

Andrew Gwynne: I, too, commend my hon. Friend and his Committee on all the work that they have done to ensure proper scrutiny of the Bill, but he may be being a little too unfair on the Government. It is not my usual practice to defend Ministers, but one of the successes that the Bill has had in its progress through both Houses is that it has unified the transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry, both of which agree that the Bill is chronically bad and will make things worse not better.

Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my Committee, which has members from all parts of the House. I thought that he was going to steal one of my best lines—that it is quite an achievement for the Government to get the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance on the same side and working in unison. He makes a serious point: there are people out there who can help us to make a contribution, and they appeared before us as witnesses, but that process has been completely ignored. At least we were able to do some serious work on the lobbying aspect of the Bill. We were able to conjure a consensus between people who came from different ends of the spectrum, and that could have been the first step in making the lobbying aspect of the Bill effective, but it has been cast aside.
	The sad thing is that what has happened throws back in people’s faces—including even the Prime Minister—the contention that lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen. As a parliamentarian, I want to help the Prime Minister sort that issue out. It was in the coalition agreement, and both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats pledged to do this, as we all did. So why are we not using the processes of the House to reach a result that will stick for a long, long time?

Andrew George: I agree that the Government have timetabled this Bill in an entirely shoddy and inappropriate manner; that concern has been expressed across the House. The previous Labour Government got up to similar antics, and it is simply not appropriate for parliamentarians to allow Governments to pursue the lowest common denominator in this way. I hope that we will pursue this issue as parliamentarians to ensure that Bills are tabled in the proper manner that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Graham Allen: It is a fact of life that Oppositions become Governments and rapidly leave behind their commitments to help the House to become part of the democratic process. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the coalition parties’ manifesto processes are clear about the changes that we want to see.
	We are now being given only four hours in which to discuss these matters. There was an unprecedented pause in the legislation, albeit only for a few weeks, to allow proper discussion to take place in the second Chamber, yet we are now being given only four hours in which to synthesise that work that happened in the other place. No one would argue that that is appropriate or adequate. We have not even had a chance to discuss the timetable, as the programme motion was not debateable. We have had no chance even to make this point, other than through the generosity of the Chair in allowing me to talk about it now. Technically, the House has not been allowed to debate the inadequacy of having only four hours for debate at the end of this Bill.

Stephen McCabe: I have a petition here from 190,553 people who object to the Bill. Does my hon. Friend think that those people will have any understanding of why the Leader of the House is forcing this business through in less than four hours?

Graham Allen: People out there do not have any such understanding, but I will go further and say that even some of the charities and voluntary sector organisations involved do not understand it. Indeed, I will go even closer to home and ask how many Members of Parliament understand how this process has actually worked over the past 24 hours. Do they understand how a Bill can be debated in the second Chamber and then pushed back here and given two working hours for consideration of the work that the other place has carried out at some length? That work, as well as the work of the commission that was set up by people who are annoyed about this process, and all the evidence taking have all gone by the board.
	This process is holding the House in contempt, and that needs to be recognised not just by the people in the lobbying industry but by the more than 10,000 organisations under the umbrella of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Those organisations come from all parts of the political spectrum. I imagine that every Member in the Chamber is associated with a trust, charity or voluntary organisation that will feel the impact of the Bill. Those organisations have been treated in a way that we should not regard as acceptable.

Hywel Francis: My hon. Friend has mentioned the NCVO. The sister organisation in Wales is the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which has recently pointed out that while there could be two elections in England over a two-year span, Wales and Scotland could have three sets of elections in such a period owing to the devolution arrangements. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem could therefore be much worse there?

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend is absolutely on the mark, as he normally is on these matters.
	This situation is completely unacceptable. It makes the case very eloquently for the establishment of a House business Committee, but I am sorry to say that that proposal has been rejected by those on the Government Front Bench, even though it was in the coalition agreement to which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats signed up. The Labour Opposition also signed up to the proposal, but it will not now take place. I cannot imagine any meeting of such a Committee, with parliamentary Back-Bench representation, that would not have identified this particular issue as an unacceptable way in which to treat the House. It would not veto the agenda for the next week, or anything ludicrous of that kind; it would raise such matters with the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in private and say that there must be a better way of considering this kind of legislation. The Wright Committee proposed the setting up of a House business Committee, and its absence reflects badly on those who promised to bring that forward within the first three years of this Government.

John Redwood: As a fellow cricketer and someone who also believes in proper parliamentary scrutiny, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. However, we have only two hours left, so will he now tell us his views on the amendments? Otherwise, we will have no time to discuss what the people outside want us to talk about.

Graham Allen: The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, and I hope that he and the House will forgive me, but it is important that people outside the House should understand why we do not have a full day to discuss this and why we have not had two days to consider the key issues. Those people who wish to campaign on the Bill did not know how to respond or how to contact their Member of Parliament. They did not know what the issues might be.
	I came into the Chamber rather hurriedly this morning because, even minutes before I was due to get to my feet to speak, I did not know which matters might be votable today. I did not know which amendments might be discussed. I have been in this place for 26 years, and I
	know my way round the Order Paper, but even experienced parliamentarians did not know exactly how today’s business would be conducted, or how the amendments might be grouped. Mr Speaker, you have had a discussion about that within the past couple of hours. How is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), for example, who cares about their charity and wants to get hold of the right hon. Gentleman, supposed to know what is going on? They might have wanted to ask him to listen to their points and to make a case on behalf of the local charity that they represent.
	However, I shall take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s chiding, in order to pre-empt your own, Mr Speaker. I shall move on to the specific matter of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of my all-party Select Committee late yesterday, not long before the debate began today. Our main amendment to this section of the Bill, on lobbying, is amendment (a). It deals with the question of who is being lobbied. Our original report found that it was ludicrous not to include senior civil servants among those who should declare clearly, honestly and transparently that they had been lobbied.
	I remember the debates on this matter well; members of all parties contributed to them. I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that a number of us—myself included—said that people never sought to lobby a permanent secretary. We noted that although getting in to see a permanent secretary involved a feat of genius, it would actually not do much good. That was because the permanent secretary would take the matter to the director-general who, in turn, would go to the desk officer. If people want to get something done—on nursery care, for example, or on cycle lanes—they do not go to the permanent secretary. They certainly do not go to them if big money is involved. They of course go to senior civil servants, which my Select Committee defined as being at grade 5 and above, and in our view those senior civil servants should be included in the group that is required to make a declaration in respect of being lobbied. That is self-evident and sensible. Excluding the very people who are lobbied the most in the Government will render the Bill an absolute laughing stock. We all know the truth of this matter.

Stephen Doughty: I completely concur with my hon. Friend’s point. Speaking as a former special adviser and a lobbyist for a charity, I can confirm that senior civil servants are exactly the kind of people that I was speaking to. Also, even special advisers get very little time with permanent secretaries. My hon. Friend is making his point well, and I hope that the Government are listening to what he is saying.

Graham Allen: A number of expert witnesses from the lobbying business came to see the Committee, at our request, and I will read out a quote from just one. The Whitehouse Consultancy, a public affairs company, said:
	“Our clients…want to develop relationships with other officials and policymakers, such as those at Director-General level or below”.
	That view was repeated over and over again; I have a list here, but I will not bore you by reading it into the record, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend makes a succinct point: those people—the doers; the people who are going to write those background papers and feed a yes
	or no recommendation to a Minister—perhaps even above Ministers, and certainly above permanent secretaries, should be first on the list.

Barbara Keeley: I join other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have thanked my hon. Friend and his Committee for the excellent work they have done. In his examination of the type of senior civil servants who are lobbied, did he note the reports of the lobbying on fracking and shale gas of senior officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change? Apparently, they discussed, over hospitality and via e-mail, lines to take, so that the same solid response came from government—from senior civil servants—and the shale gas companies. That is a perfect example of what he is talking about.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend has been persistent in raising these matters in the House, and I bow to her expertise on them. I am sure that we all have particular things that have interested us as Members over the years where it has been essential that we have such access. I have no problem in listing those things, and I hope that my constituents might be impressed if I were to do so. On the basis of honesty and transparency, all those things should certainly be clear for everyone to see, to make sure that our government is conducted without even the slightest whiff of impropriety.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Graham Allen: I give way to one of the exceptionally hard-working members of my Select Committee.

Mark Durkan: Further to the previous intervention, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we have also had recent reports about the Government’s change on minimum alcohol pricing, which showed that layered lobbying on a corporate basis by that industry had been going on? Surely the amendment he has tabled on behalf of the Committee would at least bring into the Bill’s scope all the civil servants who were part of that layered lobbying. Unfortunately, it would not bring into the Bill’s scope the very people who were doing that lobbying.

Graham Allen: If we had more than four hours and we could use the four hours on only this amendment, I imagine I could provoke every Member in the Chamber to recall a similar story or experience to that of my Select Committee colleague and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). We are all aware of such things and they are legion. If we look back at our debates in Committee and on Report, we see that people from all parts of the House made the exact same points.
	I would like to press the amendment to a vote, as is appropriate. I do not anticipate that we will win on this one. I imagine that those who support the Select Committee would win handsomely were there to be a secret ballot. The rational arguments for including senior civil servants are missed only by the Government Front-Bench team; they are not missed by Back Benchers and members of other parties. With great optimism, therefore, I await the Deputy Leader of the House accepting my amendment, in which case there will be no need for a vote. I understand that the Government have moved on including special
	advisers, and I will listen with great care about whether they will indeed be included and how that may be done. I would welcome that, and I hope it will mean that we do not have a vote on the matter.
	A lot of amendments are on the Order Paper, but I hope that we will spend most of the four hours discussing the annoyance and anger that is out there about this flawed and failing Bill, rather than spending all our time walking round in circles in the Lobby being beaten by the same number. I am afraid that this Bill and part 1 of it do not do what they were meant to do—what they said on the tin. They do not deal with what the public felt outraged about; they do not help to bring lobbying under control. They do not do what the House felt was appropriate in terms of bringing lobbying back into the mainstream. They do not do what all three parties committed to at the last general election, which was to regulate lobbying effectively. They do not do what the Prime Minister said in respect of addressing the potential for the “next big scandal” in British politics.
	On that basis, unless I hear good news from the Deputy Leader of the House, I would ask colleagues in all parts of the House to register their protest, not least at how we have been treated in our discussions on the Bill, by voting for the amendment that stands in my name as Chair of the Select Committee. I hope we will get the Government, even at this point, to see sense.

Tom Brake: I ask colleagues to disagree with Lords amendment 1, and to support amendments (b) and (c) in lieu. I hope the House will also be persuaded to disagree with amendment (a), which was tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I wish to say at the outset that I cannot agree with his comments about the lack of consultation. If he looks at what has happened since this Bill got under way and, for example, at the ministerial quarterly reports, he will see the extent of consultation that has taken place on the Bill. The fact that many of today’s amendments have been the subject of consultation in this place and in the House of Lords, and have reflected to a great extent the concerns expressed by a range of organisations, underlines the fact that substantial consultation has taken place on this subject. Indeed, many of those changes are inspired by his Committee.
	I must also say that repeatedly stating that charities will not be able to campaign on policy matters, as we have heard Opposition Members do, does not make it true.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tom Brake: Simply repeating it again and again does not make it true. The changes we have made to the registration thresholds indicate our willingness to move on this subject.

Caroline Lucas: On the process by which we are having to deal with this Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament is being made a laughing stock by the fact that we are
	trying to concertina such a complex issue into such a short time? Does that not undermine any credibility this Government had? They are supposed to be championing the big society, but they are trying to muzzle it, both in the Bill and in the process they are setting out here today.

Tom Brake: First, it is not unusual for things to proceed at this pace. I should also point out that what we are supposed to be focusing on in this debate is a limited number of amendments that have come from the Lords and some amendments in lieu that the Government are proposing—that is today’s subject. I do not want to make too long a speech, because I can see from the requests for interventions that a lot of hon. Members want to speak on this group.
	Amendment 1 was moved on Report in the House of Lords by Lord Tyler and was agreed to by a majority of 18 votes. The amendment would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and permanent secretaries. We debated this issue ourselves when discussing the amendments tabled in Committee by the Opposition, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and other Members. During that debate, the Government made it clear that the register was designed to complement the existing government transparency regime and to address a specific problem.
	It may help if I first remind the House of the context for the part 1 provisions—the unique open government context in which they have been developed. Transparency is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We are opening up government and the public sector, and by doing so we are enhancing transparency, participation and accountability. [Interruption.]The noises from Opposition Members need to be quiescent for just a couple of seconds because I want to outline the things the Government have done since 2010 to open up transparency. We have published unprecedented amounts of information about decision makers and decision making. Since 2010, we have proactively and regularly published the following details: Ministers’ private interests; Ministers and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations or individuals; Ministers and special advisers’ meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives; all gifts of hospitality received by Ministers, permanent secretaries and special advisers; ministerial overseas travel; all official and charity receptions held at No. 10; and those who have received hospitality at Chequers and Chevening.

Paul Flynn: Will the Minister explain when the Government will release the vital information on exchanges between President Bush and the then Prime Minister of this country as it is delaying the Chilcot inquiry and has delayed it for the past three years?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman must be familiar with the Chilcot inquiry website, so he can access that. I am sure that Mr Speaker will not allow me to take this debate on to the subject of Chilcot when it is very much a focused debate on the amendments under consideration.
	The list I have just read out is impressive in terms of opening up transparency. In addition, we have published the names, job titles and pay bands of all civil servants
	earning more than £80,000, and the job titles and pay bands of all other roles. Such initiatives are shining the light of transparency on to the actions of decision makers and are empowering citizens to hold politicians and public bodies to account. Despite being recognised leaders in open government, we are not complacent. We heard from colleagues in both Houses that there is more we can do to extend further transparency in Government and the public sector. We listened carefully to those concerns and, in response to my colleague, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, we made a commitment to improving the accessibility of Government transparency information. Specifically, the Government committed to ensuring better co-ordination of the publication of datasets so that all returns within a quarter can be found on one page.
	We will improve the access to and the presentation of that data, including by improving the consistency of presentation and titling. We will also seek to ensure greater consistency in the content of departmental reporting and to include the subject of meetings. Finally we will ensure that the Government.UK transparency pages contain a link to the statutory register of lobbyists so that the data can be easily cross-referenced.

Andrew Gwynne: Surely the Minister recognises that the first port of call for many lobbyists is not the Minister or the permanent secretary but the political adviser in that Department or other civil servants. Is that not the gaping hole in this lobbying Bill? It does nothing to tackle the real lobbying that is taking place.

Tom Brake: The Government are focusing on Ministers and permanent secretaries because of their key decision-making roles. Ultimately, they make the decisions in Government. We will of course come to the issue of special advisers.
	The measures will further improve the transparency of decision makers. It is equally important that the actions of those who seek to influence decision makers are also transparent. We have been clear that lobbying plays a vital role in policy making, ensuring that Ministers hear a full range of views from those who will be affected by Government decisions, particularly in the more participative and open policy-making environment that we are promoting. It is crucial that the fluency of this dialogue is protected.

Barbara Keeley: Did the Minister not hear the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about recent reports based on freedom of information requests about senior civil servants in the Department of Energy and Climate Change meeting lobbyists from the shale gas industry to give them lines to take? I am talking about hospitality, meetings and e-mails. That is not balanced; that is not hearing both sides of the argument. If that is the relationship between DECC civil servants and the shale gas companies, does the Minister not understand that there is no balance in that whatever?

Tom Brake: I am afraid that I am not aware of the details to which the hon. Lady has referred. Again, I restate the fact that this is about ensuring there is transparency around the people who make the decisions in Government, and that is perfectly appropriate.
	By publishing details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations and individuals, we have enhanced the transparency of that dialogue, without diminishing its vibrancy. There is one element of the dialogue, however, that remains potentially hidden and that is when organisations or individuals make communications to Ministers and permanent secretaries via consultant lobbyists. That is because it is not always clear which third-party interests are being represented by such lobbyists. The provisions for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists provided for by part 1 of the Bill address that specific problem. They will identify the interests represented by consultant lobbyists by requiring them to disclose details of their clients on a publicly available register.
	There has been some criticism of the Government’s proposals for a register, but there has been no consensus on what should replace it. I recognise that some in this place have suggested that the scope of the register should be broader to capture all those who communicate with Government and require them to disclose extensive information regarding their activities and finances. There has, however, been no clear articulation of the problem that such proposals would address.

Sheila Gilmore: Having chided Opposition Members for complaining about the lack of time, saying that they should concentrate on the actual amendment, perhaps the Minister himself could come to the amendment rather than reprising his Second Reading speech.

Tom Brake: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is precisely what I am doing. The failure to make the case for a higher-regulatory model has meant that neither House felt it appropriate to extend the scope of the Government’s provisions. That is not to say, however, that each place has not made very real contributions to ensuring that we deliver robust and effective provisions for a statutory register of lobbyists. Following the recommendations of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, the provisions were amended to ensure absolute clarity regarding the register’s application to parliamentarians. We also amended the Bill to ensure that the register does not impose disproportionate burdens on the smallest businesses. Further amendments were made in the House of Lords and many of those reflected discussion and debate within this Chamber.
	Lord Tyler’s, amendment, which was agreed to by just 18 votes, would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers. I understand why he was seeking to make that change. However, it is the coalition Government’s view that it would dissociate the register from the clearly articulated problem that it is designed to address. The amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee would further detach the register from its objective, by extending the scope of the register to those who lobby senior civil servants.
	The register is designed to complement the system by which Ministers and permanent secretaries publish their meetings and to address a specific and discrete problem within that context. Our view is that to extend the scope of the register to other public officials would provide no appreciable benefits because they are not required to publish their diaries.
	Yes, we accept that lobbyists make communications to Government other than directly to Ministers and permanent secretaries, but ultimately it is Ministers and permanent secretaries who are responsible for the decisions taken within their Departments. Lord Tyler suggests that the register should apply to those who lobby special advisers. Special advisers may provide advice, but they are not decision makers. It is Ministers, not special advisers, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their Departments; and it is therefore only right that Ministers, not special advisers, are the main focus of the meeting reporting system and the register.

Luciana Berger: The Minister will know as he has been in this place a while—I am a relatively new MP; I have only been here since May 2010—that when we see a Minister, as we often do in Portcullis House or around this building, they often have, on their right arm, a special adviser. That special adviser is with them morning, noon and night, and also has meetings in the evenings and at weekends. The idea that we can dissociate that special adviser from the Minister is frankly ridiculous. I cannot understand the Minister’s rationale.

Tom Brake: I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have not finished my comments in relation to special advisers. There is an amendment in lieu to which I am about to refer. Ultimately, whether or not there are contacts with the special adviser, it is not the special adviser who signs off the decision; it is the Minister.

Sarah Wollaston: The description I would use is glued at the hip. Coming to this place as an outsider, my observation is that special advisers are absolutely key to decision making. If our aim is genuinely to improve transparency, we will miss an important opportunity if we do not include special advisers.

Tom Brake: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have not finished commenting on special advisers, so perhaps I should pursue that. There might be further interventions, but let us wait and see.
	Special advisers are defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which includes the requirement that they are a person
	“appointed to assist a Minister of the Crown after being selected for the appointment by that Minister personally”.
	The Act also provides for a statutory code for special advisers that makes it clear that they may not authorise the expenditure of public funds, exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service of the state or otherwise exercise any statutory or prerogative power.
	As the code makes clear, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers. They are an additional resource for the Minister, providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available from the permanent civil service. I must restate this: unlike a Minister or permanent secretary, a special adviser is not a decision maker, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) says, they are attached to the Minister’s hip. We are
	aware, however, that there are those in this House who agree—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Members need to listen.
	We are aware that some Members agree with the conclusion of the House of Lords that communications with special advisers should be captured. Indeed, many Liberal Democrat peers and Members of Parliament agree that they should be captured, but no amendments were tabled to extend the scope of the register in such a way when the issue was discussed in this House. In the House of Lords, Lord Tyler’s amendment was agreed to, but by a small majority.

Lisa Nandy: Can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that Lynton Crosby would be covered both by the code of conduct and the amendment that the Government have tabled today?

Tom Brake: That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. If he were involved in a firm of consultant lobbyists, absolutely, he would have to register as a consultant lobbyist.

John Redwood: Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain the position of a senior official who happens to chair a committee or run a quango that has decision-making powers?

Tom Brake: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the third-party register of lobbyists focuses specifically on Ministers or permanent secretaries. That is what is before us today.
	We are not persuaded that the calls to capture communications with special advisers are sufficiently strong to justify amending the Bill in the manner that Lord Tyler proposes. We are, however, aware that the discussion about including such communications within the scope of the register is likely to continue. We therefore propose as a contingency an amendment in lieu that would introduce a power for the Minister to amend the definition of consultant lobbying provided for by clause 2 so that it could subsequently, if necessary, include communications with special advisers. Such a power would enable Ministers to extend the scope as suggested if and when they were persuaded of the case for doing so without the need for primary legislation. It should therefore assuage the concerns of those who have asked that we do not eliminate the possibility of expansion of the scope if it is justified in future.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us how many groups or organisations have met the permanent secretary at his Department in relation to this Bill, so that we get a flavour of how an effective a route that is?

Tom Brake: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer to that question immediately. However, if she wants, she can do what a number of newspapers have done when they have produced so-called scoops. They have gone through the quarterly ministerial reports, looked at the meetings registered and added up the number of meetings with the permanent secretary. That information is there if she wants to pursue the question.

Mark Durkan: On the question of the definition of “special adviser”, will the definition the Deputy Leader of the House has cited include the new class of policy
	advisers who, we are told, will be “specialist” rather than “special” advisers and will be appointed by Ministers to move policy along in significant areas?

Tom Brake: I have set out the definition. I afraid I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will see whether they would be included and get back to him.

Sammy Wilson: The argument so far has concentrated on any lobbying of the final decision maker, but does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that the process of eventually making the decision is equally important? That starts with senior civil servants and goes through special advisers, and is as important as any lobbying of the final decision maker.

Tom Brake: I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me to require the Government to publish all the internal workings of government, but that is not done by any Government. My view is that the Government’s proposed amendments in lieu will be a pragmatic response to the Lords’ concerns.
	Let me turn to the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I should remind the House that we have discussed the matter and that no relevant amendments were moved. Similar amendments were moved in the House of Lords, and the extension of the register to public officials such as civil servants was rejected by a substantial majority of 51. As I have outlined, the register is intended to complement the existing Government transparency regime. Both systems are intended to enhance the transparency of key decision makers—Ministers and permanent secretaries—and those who communicate with them.

Mark Durkan: It is somewhat unfair of the Minister to rely on the fact that no amendments to expand the scope of the register to include special advisers were moved in this House. Many amendments were tabled that would have extended the scope to include special advisers and senior civil servants, and it was only the exigencies of time that meant that Members did not move them, as they would have lost time for debate by calling a Division.

Tom Brake: Had we had the opportunity to discuss amendments on civil servants, for instance, we could have considered the impact, the scale—that is, how many thousands of civil servants it would have included—and the potential costs associated with such an extension. In some ways, I would have welcomed that.
	As we have previously outlined, there is little value in extending the scope of the register to those who are not required to publish their meeting details. We are not persuaded that the introduction of meeting reporting obligations for senior civil servants is appropriate. Such a system would result in an unnecessary, disproportionate and unhelpful administrative burden and the cost to the public purse could not be justified in light of the limited transparency benefits that would be achieved.

Angela Smith: Given that amendments (b) and (c) were made available only at 11 o'clock this morning, it would be really helpful if the House could understand the differences
	between the proposals of the amendments in lieu and those in Lords amendment 1. The House deserves a clear explanation.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The clear explanation is that our amendments in lieu provide an opportunity for such a change at a point in the future, if the debate leads to a consensus on proceeding with the reporting of special advisers’ meetings. That is what we are facilitating. Who knows? A future Labour Government might well have to make that decision, and it would be interesting to know whether they would want to take it.
	There are about 5,000 senior civil servants in the UK. Is there really public interest in seeing the details of all their meetings with external organisations? [Interruption.] Surely the huge costs that that would involve are hardly justified. I heard a number of Members saying “Yes” from a sedentary position, but I wonder if any of them have costed the possible impact and the effect that such a change would have on the activities of those 5,000 senior civil servants. I am waiting—

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Tom Brake: This might be the intervention that will confirm the cost.

Stephen Doughty: No, it will not be. The Deputy Leader of the House spoke earlier about the decision being made “if and when” Ministers were persuaded. What criteria would he use to decide “if and when” he was persuaded?

Tom Brake: We would need consensus within the coalition Government that we wanted to proceed in such a way. As I stated, a number of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and peers would like to see us proceed in such a way, but we are not in a position to do that and that is why, if the position changes, we are facilitating either this Government or a future Government in taking such a decision without primary legislation. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not use his intervention to outline the cost of extending the provision to 5,000 civil servants, which now seems to be the official policy position of the Opposition.

Graham Allen: May I again commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman, a sensible and capable Front Bencher, on being lumbered with the Bill? I am sincerely sorry that he has been landed with this—I hope that it does not influence his long-term career prospects.
	Making legislation on the hoof may allow us to repent at leisure. I would like the House to understand what was added to the amendment paper last night, because I do not understand it as much as I would like. Is the crux of amendment (b) on special advisers the word “may”—regulations may be made some time in future—which does not need to be included in the Bill, as the Government can introduce new legislation to do that, or is it a commitment that, with some certainty, that provision will be introduced in the near future? If it is the former, many of us would find it difficult to support. If it is the latter, some of us would be sympathetic towards what the Deputy Leader of the House is saying.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure that I can add much to what I said earlier, other than that this is about providing an order-making power to a Minister to enable the inclusion of special advisers in the terms of the third-party register at some point in the future, which could be the day after Royal Assent, if that was desired. We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, rather than a point of frustration.

Graham Allen: It is a point of order. In view of the response from the Deputy Leader of the House, I shall probably not press my amendment to a vote, so that the House can vote on the issue of special advisers. It is not satisfactory not to regulate that in some shape or form.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but my initial suspicion was nevertheless valid. It was a point of great interest and it is on the record, but it was not a point of order. Never mind—he has made it.

Tom Brake: I need to make some progress, as we do not have much time for the debate.
	We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them. We should provide the public with relevant and useful information, not overwhelm them with huge volumes of unhelpful and extraneous data. The House accepted these arguments in our debates on part 1, and did not seek to extend the scope of the measure in the manner proposed by hon. Members. We should respond to the Lords amendments constructively by proposing an amendment in lieu in respect of the proposed extension to capture special advisers, but we should not seek further to extend the scope in a manner that the Lords have specifically rejected.
	Briefly, Lords amendments 2 and 3 deal with recipients of communications. They are minor amendments and improve drafting to clarify and provide greater consistency in the terminology used in relation both to the recipients of the lobbying communications and to the communications themselves. Lords amendment 4 is a minor amendment that clarifies the fact that the term, “Minister of the Crown” does not, in the context of the Bill, capture the two bodies of persons, the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. As clause 2 makes clear, the communications that the register is intended to capture are those that are
	“made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”.
	The definition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 includes the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. Both those entities, however, are bodies of persons with which it is not possible to make personal communications. As such, the Lords amendments remove those bodies from the definition, and in doing so provide further clarity regarding the communications that fall within the scope of consultant lobbying.
	Lords amendments 5, 6 and 7 deal with the code of conduct. In Committee in both Houses, the Opposition tabled amendments that required lobbyists to sign up to a statutory code of conduct and face sanctions for any
	breaches. As we exposed during the debates in both Houses, the Opposition’s amendments were based on a miscomprehension of the role of codes, both statutory and voluntary, in the regulation of lobbying. While the Opposition suggested that such codes are in existence and operate successfully in other jurisdictions, we have not been able to identify any international precedent for the type of code that has been proposed. Furthermore, the Opposition could propose just one provision for inclusion in that code: a prohibition on inappropriate financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians, which is unnecessary, given the fact that there are parliamentary codes, as well as laws, on bribery and corruption. Once the shortcomings of the Opposition’s amendments were demonstrated, both Houses were able confidently to reject them.
	My Lords—not my Lords—the objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency.

Mr Speaker: The Deputy Leader of the House knows something that we do not.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not anticipate a sudden transformation of the House into the other place.
	The objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency and scrutiny. We are not seeking to regulate behaviour. During the debates, however, the Government heard calls from both Houses on the importance of ensuring that the statutory register complemented the existing self-regulatory regime. That reiterated the message of inquiries by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The self-regulatory regime is the mechanism by which the industry promotes the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. We are grateful to Members in both Houses for their thoughtful suggestions as to how we can best ensure that the register complements the regime and, after careful consideration and discussion with the industry and transparency groups, we have concluded that the most effective option is to provide for a statutory link between the statutory register and the industry-hosted voluntary codes of conduct.
	As such, we made amendments in the House of Lords that would require consultant lobbyists to state in their register entries whether or not they subscribe to a publicly available code of conduct in relation to their lobbying activity and, if so, where a copy of the code could be accessed. The House of Lords welcomed the amendments, recognising that such a provision would enhance the transparency and scrutiny of registered lobbyists. Indeed, the Opposition withdrew their amendments on the matter, persuaded that they were unnecessary.
	I was therefore surprised to see that the Opposition in this House have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 7. Amendment (a) is very similar to the amendment that was withdrawn by the Opposition’s colleagues in the Lords. First, I should point out that amendment (a) in lieu of lords amendment 7 is defective and internally inconsistent, and that its effect in uncertain. It would completely undermine amendments that we have made in this regard. Those amendments are supported by the Political and Constitutional Reform
	Committee and have been approved by the House of Lords. I imagine that the Opposition’s intention in tabling amendment (a) is to require everyone undertaking the business of consultant lobbying to subscribe to a voluntary code of conduct. We have previously explained why such a provision is unnecessary and inappropriate, but I will do so again. Requiring lobbyists to declare whether they subscribe to a code will expose those who do not abide by the ethical principles that are essential to the integrity of the industry. It is not the Government’s intention, however, to introduce a high-regulation, burdensome regime whereby the registrar is responsible for monitoring and enforcing subscription to, and compliance with, codes of conduct.
	The Government are confident that the requirement on lobbyists to declare whether they subscribe to a code will increase transparency, enhance scrutiny, and drive up standards. The Government amendments made in the Lords ensure that that is the case; the Opposition amendments in this House would undermine it.
	Lords amendments 8,10 and 11 deal with notices. They are minor amendments and improve drafting to ensure consistency in the language used in the provisions relating to the cancellation of an information notice or the variation or cancellation of a penalty notice. Lords amendments 8 and 10 increase the procedural protection for recipients of information or penalty notices by requiring the registrar to serve in accordance with clause 25(2) any notice to vary and/or cancel such notices on the person on whom the original notice was served. By ensuring consistency of terminology, these amendments will further clarify the detail of the provisions relating to the cancellation and/or variation of the notices and ensure consistency with approaches to such matters in other legislation.
	Lords amendment 9 is a minor amendment that clarifies the fact that any individual, not just employees, can commit the offence of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying while unregistered if their organisation is unregistered. The amendment removes any ambiguity as to whether the provisions apply to individuals who undertake consultant lobbying in the course of a separate business, but are not employees of that consultant lobbying business—for example, contractors. It therefore ensures that the application of the provisions in that respect are absolutely clear.
	Lords amendment 12 is a minor amendment that clarifies and ensures consistency in the language used in the provision in clause 21 allowing the registrar both to revise and to replace the guidance that he or she has published, including replacement guidance.
	Lords amendment 13 is minor amendment that clarifies the fact that the charges associated with registration will be set to ensure that the sums received offset the total costs of the registrar’s activities. Treasury guidance requires that if a charging regime recoups costs other than those directly associated with the service provided—in this instance, the keeping of the register—the position should be made explicitly clear to Parliament. This amendment reiterates that the charges provided for in clause 22 will be set to recover the total cost of the registrar’s activities, including those that are not directly connected with the keeping of the register, such as enforcement activity.
	Amendment 14 is a minor amendment that removes provisions in clause 22 in relation to the netting-off of moneys from the Consolidated Fund for the funding of
	the registrar. Such funding will instead be arranged administratively between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.
	Amendment 15 relates to regulation-making powers and is tabled by the Government to fulfil their commitment to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to part 1. The Government are grateful to the Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the delegated powers in part 1 and have accepted the Committee's recommendations in relation to this part in their entirety. The amendment therefore alters the part to require that regulations under clauses 4(5) or 5(4), the first regulations to be made under clauses 11(3) and 17(3), and any regulation that amends or modifies the provisions of the Bill must be made by the affirmative procedure. By doing so, Parliament will be provided with the opportunity to undertake detailed scrutiny of any regulations made under the powers in those clauses. I reiterate the Government's thanks to the Committee for its detailed report on this part.
	Amendments 101 and 102 are minor amendments that clarify the position in relation to employees who make lobbying communications as part of their employment. Specifically, amendment 101 provides that employees will not be considered as carrying on the “business of consultant lobbying” if they make lobbying communications as an employee in the course of a business carried on by their employer. The amendment therefore clarifies that in-house lobbyists are not captured by the part 1 provisions and that it is the consultant lobbying firm, rather than its employees, that is required to register in respect of any lobbying activity carried out by it or its employees. As Ministers have made clear throughout the Bill’s passage, the register is designed to address the problem that it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists. Conversely, it is always clear whose interests are being represented by in-house lobbyists—those of their employer.
	Amendment 102 provides, first, that where an individual makes a communication in the course of the business of another, both the individual and that other business or person make that communication. As such, the amendment ensures that the client on whose behalf consultant lobbying communications are made is always declared on the register, even if that communication is undertaken by a sub-contractor that the consultant lobbying firm has engaged. The amendment also provides that if the individual happens to be an employee—as opposed to a contractor, for example—the employee is not to be regarded as making the communication on behalf of their employer, but rather only on behalf of their employer's client, reflecting the fact that in-house lobbyists and employees of consultant lobbying firms are not required to register.
	Amendment 103 is a minor amendment intended to remove any ambiguity as to the maximum period of a re-appointment term of the registrar, which is three years. An individual may be re-appointed twice, and the maximum period for each of those terms is three years.
	I look forward to the discussion on these amendments. The Government are confident that our proposed response to Lord Tyler's amendment is sensible and constructive and will facilitate agreement between the two Houses. Equally, we are confident that the Government amendments
	agreed in the Lords will further enhance the part 1 provisions and ensure the delivery of a robust registration system that will enhance the transparency of consultant lobbying.

Lisa Nandy: The Opposition share the astonishment of charities, lobbyists, campaigners and members of the public at the way in which the Bill has been handled. Until this morning, we had been led to understand that the Government were intent on reversing the progress that had been made in the other place. This morning, when the list of amendments was published, we thought that they had conceded on special advisers. In fact, they appeared to have got themselves into a position where they were disagreeing with themselves. After listening to the Deputy Leader of the House for 47 minutes of the two hours that we have been given to debate this important part of the Bill, I, like the Chair of the Select Committee, am none the wiser as to what the Government propose. From the interventions of Members on both sides of the House, it appears that the Minister himself is not entirely sure what he is proposing either.
	It is important that we understand how we arrived at this state of extreme confusion. Clause 2—indeed part 1 of the Bill—was drawn so narrowly that none of the lobbying scandals that gave rise to the Bill would have been caught by it. The Bill was massacred in the other place, and rightly so. The decision to include special advisers was made by a decent margin, and prompted 30 Liberal Democrat peers to vote against their own Government. There have been three defeats in the other place on fundamental aspects of the Bill, and it is important that Ministers and the House ask why. This is a lesson in how not to introduce legislation. There was a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, and no expert witnesses were allowed to be called. After three years of silence on this issue, proposals landed out of the blue just two days before the summer recess. We had a two-paragraph response from the Government to a well-considered Select Committee report. We had the spectacle of a Government refusing the request from across civil society to pause the Bill for long enough to make what was branded “a dog’s breakfast” by the Chair of an influential Select Committee into a workable and effective piece of legislation. The speed is frankly ridiculous.
	The Government were still suffering defeat in the other place yesterday evening. In its report written last night and published this morning, the Select Committee said:
	“The timetable that the Government has imposed for this Bill indicates a contempt for Parliament and a lack of belief in…parliamentary scrutiny.”
	Baroness Williams said that the gap between the Bill leaving the other place and arriving here was “frankly ludicrous”. Of the two hours that we have to debate this important part of the Bill, the Minister took 47 minutes, and we are none the wiser. Like hundreds of constituents who have e-mailed me over recent weeks, I have reached the conclusion that this is a Government who have very little commitment to democracy and are not willing to be challenged.

Wayne David: Why does my hon. Friend think that the Government are so determined to push this through at this ridiculous pace?

Lisa Nandy: That is a good question. Those of us who listened to the Minister earlier are still grappling with how on earth the Government could have got themselves into this position.
	Unlike the Minister, we have been consistent in our support for extending the definition of lobbying to include special advisers. Throughout this shambolic process, Ministers have been unable to find a single good reason why that should not take place.

Jim Cunningham: We can understand why the Government are in a muddle, because there is no public support for the Bill. However, there is public support for something to be done about lobbyists, rather than attacking trade unions all the time.

Lisa Nandy: Absolutely. I would simply add to my hon. Friend’s comments the voice of many charities, which quite simply cannot understand why they, as well as trade unions and grass-roots campaigners, are the target for this Bill, when it lets off the hook powerful vested interests.

Stephen Gilbert: Does the hon. Lady accept that in the other place Liberal Democrat peers sought to exclude and exempt from the Bill all charities, yet that move was resisted by her colleagues in the other place?

Lisa Nandy: And by a majority of the charitable sector as well. The reason for that is that the Bill, as the Chair of the Select Committee has said, is a dog’s breakfast, which is so fundamentally flawed that it should be put on hold, with sufficient time for it to be thoroughly revised. If we had had pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation in the first place, we would not be in this situation.
	Ministers suggested that it would be practically too difficult to extend these provisions to special advisers. But as the Deputy Leader of the House just said in his long contribution, the Government already publish information about special advisers. They publish details of gifts and hospitality received, and details of meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors’ editors and senior executives on a quarterly basis. There is no obvious reason why this could not be extended further. The truth is that there is no political will to make this happen. Ministers have consistently been told by many of us that this really matters. Many of the scandals that this Government have been caught up in have involved Government advisers, not the Minister or the permanent secretary, whom the Deputy Leader of the House is so keen that the Bill should cover. Let us take the example of Fred Michel, an in-house lobbyist for News Corp who was exchanging written communications with Adam Smith, then special adviser to the then Culture Secretary. In e-mails and text messages exposed by Lord Justice Leveson, it became clear that that was entirely inappropriate, yet the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that no transparency requirements will be extended to such advisers or to such in-house lobbyists.

Susan Elan Jones: Many of us have been struck by how upset and concerned small charities and campaigning organisations are that the Bill targets them but not the powerful and influential.

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend, who has long been a champion of that sector, is absolutely correct. She shares my bewilderment at the Government’s target in the Bill.
	As Lord Tyler made clear when the Bill was considered in another place,
	“two of the big lobbying scandals in this Parliament… would probably never have got to this stage had encounters between close ministerial advisers and outside groups been a matter of public record.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 29.]
	There are 98 special advisers across Whitehall but, as we have learnt through the dialogue with the Deputy Leader of the House today, there are many others who are considered to be advisers and are, like special advisers, the first, if not the only, port of call for lobbyists. As was said earlier, the process of arriving at decision making matters as much as the decision itself.

Tom Brake: The hon. Lady is obviously a strong advocate of transparency. One of the things that the Government have asked the Opposition to do, in the interests of transparency, is make available information on meetings that shadow Ministers have. Is that something they will do?

Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to say that, unlike the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when they were in opposition, we publish details of meetings on a regular basis. In fact, we are the most transparent Opposition ever. I find it absolutely astonishing that, three and a half years after the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to shine a spotlight on the shadowy world of lobbying, the Government have climbed down on all the measures that we have been urging them to accept and the only thing that they can do is challenge us on our shadow ministerial diaries. The Deputy Leader of the House’s own argument was that the Government are responsible for making decisions. My point to him is that the Government are responsible for making decisions, and for the process by which they are made. We would like the measures that we have proposed to be put into the Bill. We can still see no good reason why the Government are resisting those calls.
	The issue of special advisers is so important to the House because of the decision that we are being asked to make in less than an hour. I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a series of questions that I have come up with in the last two hours, since the Government decided to table their somewhat bizarre and obscure amendments. First—I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—what is the difference between what they have tabled and the amendment proposed in the other place? The answer to my hon. Friend appeared to be that the Government are simply kicking it into the long grass. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that that is the case? Is this a guarantee that it will happen? The Government amendment states that the Government “may amend regulations”. Why use “may”?
	The Deputy Leader of the House said that there was a need to reach consensus. I can tell him, because, unlike the Government, I have been listening to the clamour outside this place, that there is consensus. In fact, the only people who do not appear to have reached
	consensus on the issue are sitting on the Government Front Bench. If he looks behind him, I think he will find that many Government Members are as concerned as we are. Are Ministers planning to introduce the proposed measure in regulation? Do they have a time frame for doing so? Why is it not being introduced now? What are the Government worried about? We urgently need to clear up the lack of understanding about the definition of special adviser.
	The Government’s amendments refer to the definition in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I asked the Deputy Leader of the House whether Lynton Crosby would be covered by that. Would it cover Adam Smith, Adam Werritty or any other Government adviser who has been involved in the plethora of scandals in recent years? [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is shaking his head and muttering under his breath. I can tell him that this matters not only to Members of the House, but to people outside this place. He will know that because he will have received hundreds of e-mails about the Bill from constituents, as we all have.
	My reading of the amendment is that Lynton Crosby would not be covered, because he does not adhere to the special advisers’ code of conduct. If that is correct, it is a disgrace. The Deputy Leader of the House, in answer to an earlier question, did not seem at all clear about who was covered by his own amendment. I am not surprised, because it was made available to us only at 11 o’clock this morning, and he expects us to vote on it shortly.
	The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee asked about senior civil servants. If Ministers are conceding—I am still not sure if they are—that the requirements in the clause can be extended to special advisers, they can also be extended to senior civil servants. It is fairly obvious that permanent secretaries are rarely lobbied, whereas senior civil servants and special advisers are. Ministers do not have to believe me; they can listen to the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, Iain Anderson, who said:
	“The vast majority of lobbying is not about meeting Ministers or permanent secretaries”
	The TUC, Spinwatch and other lobbyist groups have made the same point. The truth is that there is no reason at all not to support the sensible amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee.
	The Prime Minister used to be fond of quoting US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps he ought to reflect on something else Mr Justice Brandeis said:
	“People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.”
	Are the Government afraid of challenge? Let us consider the evidence: the right to challenge cut back through legal aid restrictions, employment tribunal fees and restrictions on migrant appeal rights; an Education Secretary who is fighting the Information Commissioner tooth and nail to block information from the public domain; and a scandal involving the use of private e-mail accounts at the heart of the Department for Education. Only this week Downing street refused to reveal how many guests were hosted at Chequers. The Prime Minister released a partial list that excluded special advisers, officials and, it seems, Conservative party donors. Without the amendment tabled by the
	Chair of the Select Committee and the important change on special advisers made in the other place, the Bill will do absolutely nothing to increase the transparency of lobbying.
	During the 47 minutes of the Deputy Leader of the House’s speech, the only reason that I could understand for why he objects to that sensible measure is his claim that it would impose additional costs and bureaucracy. I simply do not understand how the Government have the nerve to talk about costs and bureaucracy when they are placing unnecessarily restrictive, expensive and onerous burdens on charities, grass-roots campaigners and trade unions, who are the lifeblood of democratic debate in this country.

Paul Flynn: That matter was investigated thoroughly in the previous Parliament by the Public Administration Committee. There might be a burden if records and diaries were still kept by clerks working at high desks and writing on parchment with quill pens. We know now, as was made clear in the Committee’s report, that transferring the information is simple, could be done electronically and would cost nothing.

Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever, for his wise words. I absolutely concur. I do not see why it should be difficult in this day and age to put such information on a website.
	Before the general election the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said that lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen. It did happen, repeatedly, and to him. After three years of scandals, we believe that it is shameful that the Bill does absolutely nothing to raise standards in lobbying. As Lord Norton has said,
	“the Bill does not enhance transparency and it is not actually about lobbying. It is about lobbyists; it is about status, not about activity.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 13.]
	We believe that it should be. That is why the amendment standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends would make it a requirement that registered lobbyists have to abide by a code of conduct.
	The Government have conceded that registered lobbyists should record whether they are signed up to the code of conduct in the register, and we welcome that. However, the risk remains that the register will be used by lobbyists and by the public as a means of granting legitimacy to a company and its activities. It is surely no stretch of the imagination to imagine lobbyists using the term “registered” to grant themselves some kind of legitimacy that the public may not understand. Even with the changes made so far, there is nothing to stop lobbyists of any kind getting on to the register—even those who have been convicted of illegal activities. Without the amendment, there is also no mechanism to strike lobbyists off the register.
	These views are shared by many in the industry. Gavin Devine, the chief executive of MHP Communications, said in a submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
	“There is a real danger that a register by itself may make the situation worse, since it is likely those on the register will describe themselves as a ‘registered’ or ‘approved’ lobbyists, without having
	to meet at least some minimum standards. In short, there is a risk that the register will give a kitemark or endorsement to some who do not deserve it”.
	We agree with the lobbying industry, campaigners, charities and transparency activists that our proposal would help to set the standard of behaviour. The voluntary code that already governs part of the industry has sanctions for those who breach its provisions. As such, the measure proposed by the Government is a backward step—a register that could legitimise lobbyists without any standards or sanctions whatsoever for bad behaviour. This is a £2 billion industry that has been beset by scandal, to the dismay of many of us, those in wider society, and reputable lobbyists in the industry.

Stephen McPartland: Is the hon. Lady saying that she does not want part 1 of the Bill and does not want a register of lobbyists?

Lisa Nandy: Absolutely not. This is another aspect of the confusion that exists among Government Members. I say that with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his question. We have consistently called for higher standards, and that is the purpose of our amendment. Indeed, we would have liked to table it earlier so that there was much more opportunity to discuss it with Members in all parts of the House, but unfortunately the unseemly haste with which the Government have pushed this shambolic Bill through meant that we were unable to do so. We want to make sure that all the lobbyists who are registered on the Government’s register adhere to a code of conduct, with proper sanctions for poor behaviour and the ability to strike them off for it.
	This Bill was the Government’s opportunity to begin to restore trust in politics, and we would have fully supported them in that mission. When the Bill was published, leading figures from the charity sector wrote to the then Minister, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), saying that they stood ready to work constructively with the Government to try to improve a piece of legislation about which they had genuine concerns. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that the pause that was agreed in the House of Lords felt more like “a rebuttal exercise” than a listening exercise. In our view, the Government have shown civil society almost total disdain throughout this process, and in doing so they have shown, yet again, that they are not listening to a voice that they have a duty to hear.
	We are unlikely to press our amendment to a vote, for one reason and one only—the severe time constraints that this shambolic process has placed us under. We are deeply concerned about what the Government are now proposing on special advisers and we believe that there is an urgent need to address the many chilling measures that are still in the remaining parts of the Bill, which we have only a couple of hours to debate after we finish debating this part. Ministers should be in no doubt whatsoever that we share the view of the Select Committee that this part of the Bill is unsatisfactory and inadequate and will stifle democratic debate.
	On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said,
	“we have sought to be the most transparent Government in history.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 169.]
	What a joke that now appears. The Government have proved throughout this process that they will not stand up to the wealthy and powerful but prefer instead to target charities, trade unions and grass-roots campaigners. This Bill lies in tatters; it is a shambles. The Government should be ashamed to have introduced something like this to us today. Ministers seem determined not to hear the roar of noise coming from outside this place, but we remain determined that they will hear it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I inform the House that we have just 30 minutes left for this part of a timed debate? A lot of Members are indicating that they would like to speak. May I ask each of you to bear it in mind to help each other out so that we can try to get everybody in before the 30 minutes are up?

John Thurso: I appreciate the work that the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done. He knows, because I said so on Second Reading, that I agree with his points about pre-legislative scrutiny. I, too, regret the haste with which the Bill has progressed. However, we are where we are, and I will not debate that but crack on as you have asked me to, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	On Second Reading, I said that I supported the principles of the Bill but had severe concerns about some areas of detail. In Committee, I tabled amendments, some of which the Government listened to and took on board and others that they have looked at again in the other place. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, I have met on numerous occasions and worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Tyler, who has done a power of good to the Bill and improved many of the most unsatisfactory elements by a considerable degree. He has also done an outstanding job in terms of the level of his engagement with the charitable and third sectors. He has worked tirelessly to talk to them, to understand their concerns, and to try to move things forward. When we come to debate the next group of amendments, I will mention many of the things that he has achieved. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Wallace of Saltaire have also worked extremely hard to take on board people’s concerns.
	As a result of the amendments that their lordships made and that the Government are accepting, this Bill has been transformed from the difficult Bill that we considered on Second Reading to what we now have before us. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for the work he has done and for meeting me, colleagues and representatives of the charitable and third sectors several times. Underlying all this is the principle to which I still adhere—that we need much more transparency in lobbying and in the activities of third parties. The Bill is achieving that.
	I tabled an amendment in this place covering special advisers though I did not press it. Lord Tyler has put through an excellent amendment. It is no secret that there is a divergence of opinion, if I can put like that, between the two coalition partners. My hon. Friends are very keen to include the amendment, while our partners perceive considerable dangers in doing so and
	wish to proceed at a rather slower pace. I fully expected the Government to reject my noble Friend’s amendment, but instead they have proposed a compromise that I am willing to accept. As has been evinced by Labour Members, the amendment uses the word “may”. They criticised that, but if we do not put such an enabling clause into a Bill, we cannot take action at a later stage. The amendment admits a concept and a principle that it is important to place in the Bill and it is a considerable step forward.
	What does this mean in practice? There are two potential outcomes: first, the coalition partners discuss the measure, decide to implement it, and it is implemented this side of an election—an outcome devoutly to be hoped for but one for which I will not necessarily hold my breath. Secondly, at the next election I have an opportunity to go to the electorate and campaign for it, as would, I believe, all my hon. Friends.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Graham Allen: rose—

John Thurso: I will quickly take two interventions and then no more because I am going to conclude.

Mark Durkan: Given that the Deputy Leader of the House was so vehemently dismissive of the case for including special advisers today, what gives the hon. Gentleman any reason to hope that he might be persuaded to do so in future?

John Thurso: I have always seen my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House as a very reasonable and persuadable gentleman. I have had many conversations with him, and I believe that he is moving in absolutely the right direction at good speed.

Graham Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if he substituted the three-letter word “may” with the four-letter word “will”, he would achieve consensus across the House?

John Thurso: I am very aware that “shall”—that is probably the word I would look for—would achieve consensus across the House, but not on the Government Benches. I would rather stick with the consensus I have and that will go through than die in a ditch for something that will not.
	That is my argument in a nutshell. I urge my hon. Friends to accept the very considerable concession from the Government, which takes us much closer to the objective that I seek to achieve.

John Mann: I participate in this debate with great sadness, because within the last hour the funeral has taken place of Terry Butkeraitis, a miners’ leader and community organiser, and a legendary figure at the Glastonbury festival. Terry dedicated his life to the collective organisation of working people and proved that coal miners are as innovative, entrepreneurial and business-savvy as anyone else in society. Without question, Terry would have wanted me and his other friends to be in the Chamber to vote against further attacks on the unions, British values and our democracy.
	When the Deputy Leader of the House listed what he claimed were the achievements of the Government’s openness, I thought I heard Terry heckling from that public gallery on high—demanding to know, if this
	Government are to show openness, where the documents relating to the miners’ strike are. We are still awaiting those documents.
	Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House, I wondered whether his inability to explain the Bill in his 47 minutes was because he does not have a special adviser to tell him what it is all about. For some reason, I have never been a special adviser—I cannot understand why I have never been invited to apply for such a position; I do not know where they are advertised—but I have had opportunities over the years to have words with them. Frankly, the idea that any Member believes that special advisers and civil servants around Ministers do not have excessive influence over legislation is nonsense.
	I will spare his blushes, because he did it for the right reasons, but one of the ministerial colleagues of the Deputy Leader of the House came up to me just last week and asked me to assist in tabling parliamentary questions to influence his civil servants and doubtless his special advisers to ensure that the legislation came forward more promptly.

Pete Wishart: What did you say?

John Mann: Hansard will prove whether or not I did, and it may even identify the Minister.
	Such things are almost incongruous to us in this House; perhaps it is less clear to people outside the Chamber that that is how business operates here. If someone says to me, “I’ve got a great idea to amend legislation. How do I get it through?”, particularly if my party was in power and I therefore knew and could track down the special advisers, the first thing I would say is, “Here’s the list of the people with influence. You’ve got to get to them, because Ministers’ time is so dictated by civil servants—it is deliberately jam-packed—that if you want any serious dialogue, you’ve got to get in first.”
	Ministers of course ratify decisions and good ones ensure that their decisions go through, but, frankly, I can think of numerous examples where that has not been the case. Going to special advisers and civil servants, although usually with general ministerial consent—perhaps not from the particular Minister, but from No. 10 Downing street or the Minister’s boss—is precisely how someone can get changes made.
	Anyone who has participated in a Public Bill Committee knows that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will remember that we sat on the Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill for what seemed like a year. I tabled an amendment about endangered species and wildlife. External bodies wanted it, and the Minister and colleagues from both sides of the Committee were very supportive of it, but the Minister’s response was, “Well, we need to check the details.” The only reason we got the amendment accepted was that we sat down with a special adviser with access to civil servants, and with the civil servants themselves, to clear every dot and comma so that when I got up in Committee, with support from all sides, the Minister said that the Government accepted the principle and would come back with their own wording—strangely, it was identical
	to mine—and it was later presented as their amendment. That is how it works here. If we are to control these lobbyists, of course the special advisers and civil servants—whoever is in power—have to be included.
	I will finish by raising one other issue. I have in my possession documents showing that in recent times a senior, well-known lobbyist has set up a fake company—or a real company, but using a false name and date of birth. How will the Minister deal with that under the Bill? When such a case eventually comes before him and other Ministers, how will they deal with its unethical nature, and how will they respond to the influence of such a lobbyist over the Government? Does he agree that anyone who does that should automatically be prevented from having any access to any Ministers?

Mark Durkan: I rise to support amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 which was tabled on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which I am a member, and to address the specious Government amendments (b) and (c), as well as to deal with the choices presented by the different amendments.
	Let us be clear that amendment (a) builds on the amendment made in the other place so that special advisers are rightly caught within the scope of the part 1 of the Bill. Many of us argued for that during earlier stages of the Bill. Contrary to what the Leader of the House implied, we did so seriously; we did not press it to a Division simply because of time constraints and to allow debate on other matters. Only amendment (a) gives us the opportunity to make sure that senior civil servants and special advisers are within the scope of the Bill.
	Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 1 almost amount to an act of misdirection by the Government. They may allow people to satisfy themselves that special advisers might be brought within the scope of the Bill. They will, however, leave senior civil servants outside its scope, which is exactly their aim. Of course, they may not even bring special advisers within the scope of the Bill. Amendment (b) is a fig leaf for the Leader of the House, who tabled it, and a figment in the minds of its supporters: there is no real risk that it will bring special advisers within the scope of the Bill. Those supporting it have clearly set their face against special advisers. Today and on previous occasions, they have given all the arguments why special advisers should not be included. We are fooling ourselves if we think that they will reconsider that issue in a matter of months between now and the election or some other time. That is absolute nonsense, and we would make real fools of ourselves if we fell for it.
	Amendment (b) not only says that regulations “may” amend subsection (3) of clause 2, but is worded carefully to provide that
	“communications made personally to a special adviser are within that subsection.”
	When I see highly qualified and specific wording such as
	“made personally to a special adviser”,
	I wonder whether it is done deliberately. Perhaps there are all sorts of other forms of communication that can take place with a special adviser. For example, other parties like donors who do not have a direct interest or
	who are not consultant lobbyists, but who are friends of other businesses or interested parties, could communicate with a special adviser.
	We will not address any of the serious issues that have been raised about this part of the Bill by the public or in this House and the other Chamber by nodding along to amendments (b) and (c), which are notionally in lieu of Lords amendment 1. The Deputy Leader of the House could not tell us whether the term “special adviser”—whether in Lords amendment 1 or as defined in amendment (c)—would include the new breed of advisers that the Government are determined to appoint.

Tom Brake: I have received clarification on that point. The new type of adviser to which the hon. Gentleman is referring exists only as a recommendation in a report on civil service reform. Such advisers do not currently exist, so it is impossible definitively to confirm or deny whether they would be covered by the proposals. If the new advisers are employed on the same basis as special advisers and are therefore covered by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, they would be covered. If they are not employed on that basis, but are employed as civil servants, they would not be covered.

Mark Durkan: In what I have read, Government officials have said that the new advisers will not be special advisers—they might be specialist advisers, but they will not be special advisers. They will advise on policy. We are told by the Ministers who back the idea that it is about trying to break the logjam in Government and move policy along decisively. They will therefore have a key role in moving public policy along. It is Ministers, not Opposition Members, who are planning to have this new breed of advisers—this addition to the ecosystem of government and the networks of advice—so if the Government have not worked out what class of beast they will be, they cannot condemn the rest of us for asking and wondering. As legislators, we are meant to think forward to things that are planned and that are likely to happen.
	The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has said that the reason he will not press amendment (a) to a Division is purely to afford the House time to discuss the issues in part 2 of the Bill that need to be discussed. However, I want to stress the merits of amendment (a). I hope that in future, Ministers will not abuse the fact that a proposal is not being pressed to a Division out of courtesy to the Chamber because it has other serious concerns to discuss to make out that Members do not care about the issues or that the issues are not serious, as they have done today. These issues are serious. In my view, the Government have deliberately used the audacity of their proposals in part 2 as a human shield to cover the paucity and weakness of their proposals in part 1, which will apply only to those who present themselves in the Yellow Pages under the heading “Consultant Lobbyists”. People can engage in the business of professional lobbying on any other paid basis, whether it is in-house or for any of the big accountancy or legal firms, which provide all sorts of services.

Anne Main: I tabled amendments earlier in the Bill’s progress because I was very concerned about private lobbying and private lunches with friends,
	which can have a great deal of influence through the chains that the hon. Gentleman is describing. That is a weakness with this part of the Bill. I am only sorry that we do not have longer today to listen to the important nuanced arguments that are being made.

Mark Durkan: I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns, which she specified so well in earlier stages of the Bill’s progress. In the spirit of acknowledging the profound concerns of other Members, I will draw my remarks to a close.

Caroline Lucas: I know how much pressure there is on time, so I will make two short points.
	First, I pay tribute to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the members of that Committee for all the hard work that they have done under incredibly difficult circumstances. In spite of the odds, they have provided Members with good information for this debate.
	Secondly, the Government must be in a parallel universe if they genuinely think that the reassurances that they have pretended to give today will provide any comfort to people in this institution and, more important, those outside this institution. It is deeply insulting to our intelligence to say, “Well, a Minister might be able to change the meaning of this clause some time in the future,” and think that we will all go home thinking that that is fine.
	That matters not just because of the importance of the Bill, but because what is happening here today is being watched by people all around the country. People are very dismayed about what a shambles this process is. It undermines our credibility as an institution if we cannot organise ourselves better to do justice to the arguments that have been debated in public meetings up and down the country. I have had more contact and received more letters on this issue than on anything else, other than the reorganisation of the NHS. People care about it deeply. It shows how out of touch the Government are that they think that they can rush the Bill through and get plaudits from people outside for the few amendments that they have introduced at the last moment, which do not go anywhere near far enough.
	No matter how many times the Government repeat that there has been consultation or that there is transparency, I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking-Glass”, when he says that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. That is what is happening here. The Government are in a parallel universe. They are deeply out of touch with ordinary people. If more Government Members had listened to the public, they would know that they cannot get away with this.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Lady share my suspicion that perhaps the main reason why the Government are rushing this legislation through is that they want to curtail proper debate and scrutiny of their policies immediately before the election?

Caroline Lucas: I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we had more time, we could speculate further on the motivation for this very sinister Bill. I agree with the motivation that he ascribes to it.
	Finally, the Government came to office saying that they would champion the big society, so it has been
	deeply disillusioning for everybody to see how they have muzzled it at every turn. I hope that people will remember that when they vote in the election in 18 months’ time.

Graham Allen: In view of the time, rather than have Members wandering around the Lobbies to produce a result that we all know in advance, I will not press amendment (a) to a vote. However, I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan): we in no way accept that the Government’s proposal is good. On the contrary, we believe that senior civil servants should be covered in the Bill, but they are not. I hope that all colleagues in this House and in the other place will realise that the only reason I am withdrawing the amendment is to ensure that there is only one vote and that we do not take up the House’s precious time, which has been so curtailed by the Government’s timetable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Tom Brake.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 311, Noes 258.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (b) and (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
	Lords amendments 2 to 4, 101 to 103 and 5 to 15 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 13 and 14.

Clause 26
	 — 
	Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 16.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
	Lords amendments 17 and 104 to 107.
	Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 19.
	Lords amendment 20, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 21 to 25.
	Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendments 28 to 54.
	Lords amendment 55, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 56 to 58.
	Lords amendment 59, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 60 to 74, 109 to 116 and 18.
	Lords amendment 75, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 76 to 98.
	Lords amendment 99, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendment 100.

Andrew Lansley: Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108, with which the Government disagree, relate to constituency limits and staff costs. I ask the House not to support amendments tabled by hon. Members to Lords amendments 20, 55, 59, 75 and 99.
	After the Bill was last seen by the House, during consideration in the House of Lords, the Government undertook a further six-week consultation with interested parties—on part 2 of the Bill—that built upon the Government’s already considerable engagement with many campaigning groups. During the consultation, which took place between Second Reading and the Committee stage of part 2 of the Bill in the Lords, the Government held detailed, important and exhaustive—and sometimes exhausting—talks with some 50 organisations. Those discussions informed the Government amendments, with which the Lords agreed. As the House will have discerned from my opening remarks, many amendments—100 in total, encompassing 20 substantive issues—to part 2 have returned from their lordships, and we propose to accept all but three of them. The amendments, agreed in consequence of our discussions in the Lords, represent a considerable body of work undertaken in that House, and we are grateful to their lordships for that work.
	The changes are designed to address the practical concerns raised by third parties, while preserving the important principles of transparency that underpin part 2. The amendments reduce the burden on smaller third parties who campaign at elections, ease the transition to the new regime and clarify the regulatory rules. That last point is important, because it became clear during the consultation that concerns often stemmed from a lack of awareness of the existing rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	As the House will recall, the PPERA established a framework for the regulation of non-party campaigning at elections, and many of the representations derived from an objection not to the Bill, but to how the PPERA rules, in the view of those making the representations, would have worked. This debate has enabled us to introduce amendments that meet many of the concerns raised, to clarify how charities and campaigners can legitimately campaign on policies and issues without falling subject to the election law regulatory regime and, where they may fall to be regulated, to reduce the burdens of compliance and ensure that small-scale campaigns are exempt from that regime.
	The House will recall that before the Bill was sent to the Lords, we made significant changes to it here. In particular, we returned to the definition of “controlled expenditure” in the PPERA—in other words, expenditure
	“reasonably regarded as intended to…promote or procure the electoral success”
	of a party or candidate—but narrowed it slightly so as not to include the additional limb about enhancing the standing of parties or candidates. We had, therefore, already made some clarifications to the Bill before we sent it to their lordships.
	Of those changes, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, one of the largest and most prominent umbrella bodies representing charities and the voluntary sector, said:
	“The government’s commitment to abandon the change to the test of what constitutes non-party campaigning is a significant step in the right direction.”

Pete Wishart: The Leader of the House knows, because we have told him often enough, that on these issues we actively encourage the participation of the third sector in Scotland. In light of that, why have the Scottish Government not received one reply from this Government regarding the Bill, particularly concerning its effect on our referendum and on Scottish charities?

Andrew Lansley: The Bill, of course, will have no effect on the referendum in September. I do not recall receiving a letter from Ministers in the Scottish Government, although I do recall receiving letters from the First Minister of Wales, which I replied to. If Ministers have received any such letters, I shall gladly take advice on what the reply has been.
	On the amendments to part 2 that their lordships have returned to us today, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said:
	“Much of the risk to charities from this legislation has now been averted. We are grateful that the government has listened to the concerns charities have raised in recent months. Charities, by law, may not campaign in a party political manner…The bill now provides a much more sensible balance than it did to begin with between creating accountability and transparency in elections while still allowing for charities and others to speak up on issues of concern.”
	One need not fully embrace what NCVO said about the character of the Bill in the first place to recognise that we have arrived at what I hope continues to meet the principles of transparency in election campaigning while continuing to enable charities and voluntary organisations fully to exercise free speech on policies and issues.

John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that charities have never been able to use tax-privileged money to campaign for parties and individuals in elections, which is what he wishes to continue to be the case?

Andrew Lansley: That is absolutely right. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recall—it has been interesting to have these conversations—that if charities comply with the guidance, called CC9, issued by the Charity Commission, we can be pretty confident, except in very limited circumstances, that they would not fall to be regulated under election law. It could happen if, for example, a charity pursued its purpose in a run-up to an election, received various pledges from various candidates or parties in relation to its objectives and then chose to issue details to the public. That could be held to be seeking to influence electoral outcomes. Frankly, however, our discussions have increasingly demonstrated a mature approach on the part of the charities, many of which
	have recognised that the Bill was not really about exempting charities and that only in very limited circumstances would charities fall to be regulated. Many charities completely understood and agreed that it was right for those who wished to influence election outcomes to do so openly and transparently. That is what the Bill is all about.

Andrew George: The Leader of the House implies that, in accepting all but three of the amendments to part 2, the Government are being generous, yet many of the amendments are, of course, Government amendments. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, as well as the charitable sector demonstrating its maturity, the Government might have learned some lessons from this particular process? What are those lessons, and does he not accept that he could have done things better?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but I think that, in this respect, my hon. Friend has not understood how these issues have often worked. I shall not go through all the amendments in detail, but many of those that he says are coming back to us as Government amendments were tabled as Government amendments on Report in recognition of the character of the preceding debate and consultation in Committee. Members of the House of Lords often raised issues in Committee. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Gardiner did magnificent work in determining where it was appropriate for the Government to make amendments in recognition of the concerns expressed. [Interruption.] I do not think that Opposition Members should sneer at the idea of the Government tabling amendments in the other place in order to bring them back here to meet the concerns, which is nothing other than a proper process of scrutiny.
	There are a lot of amendments in the group, so let me set out the Government view of the main ones, starting with those with which we disagree. It is important for Members to understand where the burden of the debate lies.
	Lords amendment 108 seeks to exclude staff costs associated with any member of staff of a third party from the calculation of controlled expenditure for transport, press conferences, organised media events, public rallies and public events. When Parliament passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it believed that the inclusion of staff costs was an important element of ensuring a transparent regulatory regime. As Labour Members will recall from their time in government, that Act included staff costs in the calculation of controlled expenditure for non-party campaigners. The decision was taken on the basis that where a third party undertakes other activities besides political campaigning and enters into political campaigning, its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent.

Charlie Elphicke: My understanding is that our election agents would count as part of our costs when we stand for election, as would hiring a phone bank, so why should there not be full transparency in connection with the staffing costs in this case?

Andrew Lansley: There is a distinction between the handling of staff costs for political parties and their handling for non-party campaigning. That was the point I was making: in so far as political parties have permanent staffing costs, they are not necessarily included, but it was
	determined in the 2000 Act that we should aim to identify the additional costs.
	[Interruption.]
	They are included in individual constituency calculations, but not in the total spending limits for political parties, as applied under PPERA on a national basis. Otherwise, if a political party had more staff, it would automatically have less money available to spend at the time of the election. It is essentially about parity of arms. Where third parties are concerned, except in relation to the election period, almost by definition they do not have permanent expenditure on party political campaigning, so what they spend at election time needs to be calculated.

Graham Allen: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way, but I must make some progress; otherwise the Opposition Front-Bench team will start chuntering again, complaining that I have taken up all the time.

Graham Allen: I shall avoid drawing the parallel that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) drew between political parties on the one hand and charities and voluntary organisations on the other, which rather gave the game away. Let me refer more helpfully to the fact that my Select Committee supports the view that staffing costs should be included. However, we also support the second Chamber in its view that, for practical reasons, that should not apply this time round. The Electoral Commission and their lordships argued on practical grounds that because of the extra bureaucracy and the shortness of time, staffing costs should be exempt on this occasion, whereas they should normally be included.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point at this stage. He was a member of the Government who included staff costs for non-party campaigning in the 2000 Act, and I think it would have been consistent for him to have stayed with that position.
	On the concerns of third parties about the difficulties associated with calculating staff time, that is an existing element of the regulatory regime. Its operation in the last two general elections, alongside Electoral Commission guidance, shows that such costs can be accounted for without it being overly burdensome. In its current guidance, the Electoral Commission takes a proportionate approach to the calculation of controlled expenditure, including staff costs, by stating that third parties should make an honest assessment of the costs, which need to be reported.
	It should also be noted—Lords amendment 19 is relevant—that with the proposed increases in the registration threshold, smaller organisations, whether they be charities or other campaigning organisations, will not be subject to any regulation. The need to calculate staff costs will not apply in that case, and it is the same for any larger organisation that spends only relatively small sums. Volunteer costs will, of course, continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled expenditure.
	As such, the Government believe that the inclusion of staff costs is an important element of the regime. We have none the less agreed to a review of the operation of the Bill during the 2015 general election. The inclusion of staffing costs will be an aspect of that review. Lords amendment 108 would, however, create a
	significant gap in the operation of an effective regulatory regime at the next general election, so I ask the House to reject it.
	The next Lords amendments with which the Government disagree are Lords amendments 26 and 27—adding up to the total of three. These amendments provide that only limited activities should be considered as part of controlled expenditure for constituency limit purposes. The amendments would require that only the costs of election materials—whether they are addressed to households or otherwise distributed—and unsolicited telephone calls to households should count towards those constituency limits. They therefore fail to take into account the principle that lay behind the introduction of constituency limits, namely the principle of transparency. It is essential for members of the public to know when third parties are campaigning in the constituencies in which they live, and to know how much money they are spending in doing so if it rises above any significant level.
	As Members know very well, campaigning does not revolve around leafleting and cold calls. There are events such as press conferences and rallies; there is transport to bus supporters to an area, and there are the payments made to campaigners. All those are significant aspects of campaigning, and excluding the costs of such activities would undermine the effectiveness of the constituency limits. The constituency limits applying to third parties were introduced to prevent candidates and political parties—they are, of course, the main actors in any election, and rightly so—from being outspent and overwhelmed by the activities of third parties, so that parties do not put their own candidates forward in an election. The Bill does not prevent third parties from campaigning, but it does require them to be open and up front about their spending, and not to overwhelm and outspend the candidates and parties.

Caroline Lucas: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has listened to all the non-governmental organisations which have tried to explain to him that, by and large, they do not organise on a constituency basis, and that trying to allocate the costs in that way is incredibly complex and time-consuming. Is he ignoring those organisations because he does not understand how they work, or because he does understand how they work and wants to shut them down?

Andrew Lansley: I have listened very carefully to what has been said to me. I think that campaigning organisations often object to constituency limits because they erroneously assume that when they are undertaking a national activity there will be disaggregation to individual constituency limits, because of, as it were, the coincidence of where that activity takes place. It will form part of a constituency activity in circumstances in which there is a significant effect in that constituency; otherwise, it will form part of a national activity. [Interruption.] The guidance will make clear that a constituency limit will apply when there is a significant effect in a specific geographical area or individual constituency, but that when the activity concerned forms part of a national activity, national limits will apply.
	We need constituency limits. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is proposing that we should not have them, but when we sent the Bill to the House of Lords,
	a clear decision made by Members of the House of Commons expressed their belief that it was right to have them. Without them, the national limit could all be spent in individual constituencies: it could be targeted on a small number of constituencies in a way that would completely distort elections that are meant to be between political parties. That is the basis on which the Bill is structured.

Wayne David: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. I need to make progress now.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would return the spending limits to a higher level than that for which the Bill provides—effectively, to the current level in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It proposes a spending limit of £793,000 for England, £108,000 for Scotland and £60,000 for Wales. The limit for Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Bill, would continue to be £30,800.
	During our debate on the last group of amendments, the hon. Gentleman spent half an hour lecturing us about the procedures of the House. He is the Chair of a Select Committee which, on Report, proposed amendment 102, which would have deleted clause 27 and left the spending limits as they were in PPERA. He argued for that, and the House rejected it by a majority of 51. Now he has presented a report to the House—from a Select Committee of the House—which completely ignores the House’s decision. The House has a view on this matter, but the Committee has ignored that view. The hon. Gentleman is simply re-presenting the same argument to the House, ignoring—on behalf of his Select Committee—the fact that the House has already rejected it. If the Select Committee does nothing else, it should take account of the view of the House before submitting a report to the House.

Graham Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. Oh, come on then.

Graham Allen: I wanted to intervene so that the right hon. Gentleman could calm down for a moment and stop wagging his finger at Members.
	Had my Select Committee—the majority of which consists of coalition Members—had more than two working hours in which to produce a report, we would have done an even better job; and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if we had had the time that he has had in which to produce a Bill, we would have done a damn sight better job than he has managed to do.

Andrew Lansley: I shall not wag my finger at the hon. Gentleman, but he has made a ridiculous point. If the members of his Select Committee wanted to produce an additional report, they should have directed themselves to the Lords amendments. [Interruption.] They have not done that. What they have done is reintroduce, by way of an amendment to a Lords amendment, a subject—[Interruption.] Amendments were agreed in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment whose purpose is not to address the Lords amendment, but to reinsert a provision that was previously rejected, and was not even pressed in the House of Lords.
	Both this House and the House of Lords agreed that a reduction in spending limits was sensible. The £450,000 overall spending limit that the Bill now proposes is at a level that few political parties exceed, accounting for the same range of activities. For instance, at the last general election only four political parties—ourselves, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the UK Independence Party—spent more than that.

Stephen Twigg: You spent a lot more.

Andrew Lansley: We have equality of arms under the legislation, although I think I remember that, technically speaking, the Labour party spent more. But we will return to that.
	There are about 100 other political parties, campaigning on a national basis, which managed to do so without exceeding that overall spending limit. Surely, if third parties wish to campaign on the basis of involving themselves directly in the influencing of elections, they should be able to do so without spending more than the great majority of the small political parties in the country have chosen to spend.

Mark Durkan: As a member of the Select Committee, I think it a bit rich for us to be lectured on proposing amendments to Lords amendments by someone who is proposing that we reject a number of significant Lords amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the Bill, as it broadly stands—with the Government’s suggested response to the Lords amendments—is so perfect, why did the Government table Lords amendment 99. which gives Henry VIII powers to Ministers enabling them to change the very law that he says is so perfect?

Andrew Lansley: I shall deal with Lords amendment 99 later. What I will say now is that the amendment that we are discussing would leave the spending limit in Northern Ireland as it is under existing legislation, not least because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House went to Northern Ireland to meet organisations there and discuss these matters.
	The third party spending limit allows for a great deal of activity. That is partly because much electioneering activity can be now conducted by means of new technology at a much lower cost than used to be the case, but in any event a third party could print 40 million leaflets, it could take out a dozen front-page advertisements in a national newspaper, or it could make 780,000 telephone calls from a professional phone bank. That, I think, demonstrates that the limits proposed by Lords amendment 20 are proportionate.

Charlie Elphicke: I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants to increase the amounts. Given that elections are meant to take place between political parties, why are the limits so extensive, and why have the Government allowed them to be so high?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the spending limits for political parties, or—

Charlie Elphicke: My point is this. Should not the third-party interventions be lower, given that elections are meant to take place between political parties?

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We have set out to strike a balance, and, in Lords amendment 20, we have changed the limits applying to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On the basis of all those arguments, I ask the House to resist amendment (a) if it is pursued by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
	Turning to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 55, the Government have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure reporting requirements are not overly burdensome. The Government removed the need for nil reporting and have also reduced the regulated period. The regulated period for third parties will commence in September this year, not May, and this will allow additional time for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and for campaigners to be fully aware of the regulatory regime. Owing to the reduced regulated period, this will impact on the quarterly reporting cycles for the 2015 general election, with the final “quarterly cycle” being compacted from September—three months is a short period running up to the general election.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham North has tabled an amendment intending to deal with this situation. However, the Government believe that as this is late in the cycle and only reports of donations over £7,500 are required, third parties will have systems in place to cope with this reduced period. As there is no requirement for nil reports, a period—short or otherwise—will require nothing at all unless a large donation is accepted during that period. It should be noted that third parties will have to provide weekly reports after the Dissolution of Parliament, so the compacted final quarterly cycle will not result in an overly burdensome reporting requirement, particularly in the light of the Lords amendments, which we will come on to, relating to reporting requirements.
	On the hon. Gentlemen’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 59, third parties will only have to submit a donations return to the Electoral Commission where they have received a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. Where they have not received a donation of this value, no report needs to be submitted. This underpins the aim of part 2, which is to increase transparency without placing overly burdensome reporting requirements upon a third party. As is the current practice, under section 96 of PPERA a third party will have to provide a full report of reportable donations three months after polling day. This return is submitted to the Electoral Commission. The Government believe that the section 96 return provides an important safeguard where a full record of reportable donations is provided and visible. This will allow both the Electoral Commission and the general public to ascertain the amount and source of all reportable donations received by a third party during the regulated period. The Government do not believe that this requirement is overly burdensome, as the information will have already been prepared by the third party. It also allows the opportunity for the third party to declare any reportable donations which it has failed to declare previously. This underpins the regulatory regime. We therefore do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which requires the same donation to be reported only once as that would risk a lack of transparency through this section 96 return coming after the election.

Angela Watkinson: Most of the correspondence I have received from concerned members of the public is in support of
	charities, some very small, whose normal activities are not related to the electoral success of a political party or individual. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to set their minds at rest that this Bill will not be detrimental to them in any way?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can, for two reasons. First, only expenditure which would reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the success of a party or candidate might fall to be regulated as election expenditure, and it is demonstrable at previous elections under this regulatory regime that large amounts of policy-related campaigning has been undertaken by charities and that has not required to be regulated. The second reassurance, as we will come on to see with other amendments, is that we are proposing to lift the registration threshold up from the current level of £10,000 to £20,000. That will allow small-scale campaigning by organisations not to be part of the regulatory regime.
	Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75, a statement of accounts only has to be provided if the third party has incurred controlled expenditure over the registration threshold. In addition, an individual is excluded from the provisions. Those third parties who prepare accounts under another enactment need not prepare additional accounts if the commission is satisfied they include equivalent information. When a third party registers with the Electoral Commission it must state, using a simple tick box, whether it is an individual or one of the bodies that can register as a third party. From this information, the Electoral Commission can ascertain whether the body provides accounts under another enactment. As a result it would add unnecessary additional bureaucracy to ask the third party to submit a subsequent declaration that it is exempt from the provisions, as the amendment requires. I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist with that.
	Turning to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 99 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the order-making power, to which the hon. Member for Foyle just referred, would allow for the Government only to make consequential amendments. It would not allow the Government to amend the fundamental principles and provisions included in part 2 of the Bill. Any changes to primary legislation would be subject to affirmative resolution in any case. The power is also time limited, so that it could only be used until the date of the next general election. I should emphasise that I hope this power will not be needed, but I consider it prudent to insert it into the Bill, to ensure it is possible to make changes should unforeseen or unintended effects be identified after the Bill receives Royal Assent which could be put right by consequential provision.
	The Government have introduced—the Lords is introducing—a number of amendments of significant benefit to campaigners, and we would not want to risk them being ineffective for any technical reason. We agree that it is important to consult the commission and I can assure the House that we will consult it before making an order under this power. The commission in its briefing agrees with this approach. Should the commission make a recommendation to us to use this
	power, we will consider such a recommendation extremely carefully. Because of the limited scope of the power and this assurance, the Government do not believe it is necessary to accept this amendment.
	Baroness Thomas, the Chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords, described the power yesterday as
	“well precedented and here it is very narrowly drawn. The House need not worry that the Government are in some way exceeding their powers or doing something they should not on this occasion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 615.]
	Consequently, we cannot support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
	Let me turn to the Lords amendments with which we agree. Lords amendments 106 to 107 set out in schedule 8A a consolidated and extensive list of the types of expenses which are excluded from counting as controlled expenditure. Further to the current exclusions provided for in PPERA, the Lords in these amendments extend them to include: expenses related to translating materials from English to Welsh or from Welsh to English; costs associated with providing protection of persons or property in relation to a public rally or event; and reasonable expenses incurred that are reasonably attributable to an individual’s disability. The exclusion of translation costs reflects the position of the Welsh language, which is governed by the Welsh Language Act 1993. Under that Act, the English and Welsh languages have equal status in Wales. This differs from other languages spoken in the UK, where the UK Parliament has not legislated to give them the same status as Welsh.
	Lords amendment 19 increases the registration thresholds in the Bill, as I was discussing in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson). Those were set in the Bill at £5,000 for England and £2,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment however raises these amounts substantially, from £5,000 to £20,000 for England and from £2,000 to £10,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This change is in response to the many representations this Government have received from campaigners who spend only small amounts of money and were concerned that the Bill’s transparency provisions, though essential, would in fact impose unduly onerous compliance requirements. It is important to recognise, as many organisations did, that election expenditure should in principle be disclosed and regulated, but there were concerns that smaller organisations would be caught by the provisions. By raising the thresholds to levels that also take into account the extended range of activities proposed by the Bill, small campaigners can be assured that they will not suddenly be subject to administrative controls that they are not resourced or equipped to comply with.

Bob Stewart: Does the raised amount include staff costs?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. The registration threshold is the threshold of expenditure at which one is required to register, and all the limits for the registration threshold and the total spending limits are in relation to the definition of controlled expenditure which includes staffing costs for third parties.
	Lords amendment 20 increases the spending limits—not the registration thresholds—for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by £20,000 each. This is an increase from the levels set in the Bill when it went to the Lords. The new limits will be £55,400 for Scotland, £44,000 for Wales and £30,800 for Northern Ireland. Campaigners have argued that the spending limits for those parts of the United Kingdom were disproportionately low—so low in fact, that they might force campaigners to step aside and not participate in elections. It has never been our intention to prevent third parties from campaigning altogether. They are a key aspect of the democratic process and, to ensure they remain so, the spending limits have been raised to more suitable amounts.
	Lords amendment 18 relates to coalitions. It is important to recognise that the Bill did not change the regulatory regime for coalitions, but the debate on the Bill has enabled us to identify a change that will help campaigners that do incur small amounts of expenditure. The Government received many representations on the existing PPERA regime on coalitions. The concern was that the Bill’s provisions would put onerous reporting burdens on them. This fear was particularly pronounced in relation to those who often campaign as part of a coalition.
	This new procedure introduces a new framework. A third party may participate in as many coalitions as it wishes. When it takes part in this procedure, it will not have to report for its expenditure, provided it does not incur total spend above the registration threshold—the numbers to which I just referred. The third party would take on the status of a “minor campaigner”. Another third party who agrees to act as a “lead campaigner” in the coalition’s common plan would instead report the expenditure it and the minor campaigner had both incurred. As with the registration thresholds, this provision is also intended to reassure small spending campaigners that new burdens will not be imposed upon them. Indeed, it will reduce the burden compared with the regime in the 2000 Act.
	Lords amendment 28 removes the post-dissolution constituency limit of £5,850. Campaigners may now spend the entire constituency limit of £9,750 at any time during the regulated period, or just in the last few weeks before the election if they so wish. That makes it less restrictive and easier to comply with.
	Lords amendments 91, 94 and 96 shorten the length of the regulated period for third parties. The regulated period is the time before an election within which only limited expenditure can be incurred, and certain campaigning rules must be observed. Reports must be submitted to the regulator. The regulator, the Electoral Commission and campaigners have argued that they need more time than the Bill would otherwise allow to understand fully the new rules and their responsibilities under them. The Government agree about the need to ensure suitable guidance is in place for campaigners. If the Electoral Commission needs further time to produce this guidance, and ensure it is relevant, clear and useful, the regulated period can be shortened to facilitate that. That is why the regulated period for third parties, for the purposes of the 2015 parliamentary general election only, will be reduced to seven and a half months—starting immediately after the Scottish referendum—instead of the usual twelve months.
	Let me stress that the regulated period for political parties is not being similarly reduced.
	The Lords have also introduced amendments to allow royal chartered bodies, charitable incorporated organisations, Scottish charitable incorporated organisations and Scottish partnerships to register as a recognised third party. This reflects the fact that the list of bodies that can register as a third party has not been updated since 2000.
	The Lords have made further amendments that seek to reduce unnecessary burdens on recognised third parties. As a result, recognised third parties will have to provide a donations report to the Electoral Commission only when they receive a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. There will no longer be a requirement to provide nil reports. In addition, a recognised third party will no longer have to provide a spending return or statement of accounts if it only incurs controlled expenditure below the necessary registration threshold. When a recognised third party has to provide a statement of accounts, this can be sent to the Electoral Commission in a longer time frame—within nine months of the end of the regulated period, if they do not have to be audited, or 12 months, if they do have to be audited.
	On non-party campaigning, in order to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are subject to review, Lords amendment 88 stipulates that the Government must, within twelve months of Royal Assent, appoint a person to review the operation of the PPERA provisions, as amended by this Bill, at the next general election. The findings of that review must be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the next general election—that is, by November 2016. The review will provide a unique real-time opportunity to assess how the new regulatory regime is operating, in good time for the 2020 general election.
	Lords amendment 87 is not about non-party campaigning. It introduces a new measure to ensure that candidates’ personal expenses will be excluded from counting towards their election expenses limits at local elections in England and Wales. This change will harmonise those arrangements with the existing situation for parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections and Greater London authority elections, at which personal expenses are already excluded from candidates’ expenses limits.
	This change has been brought about principally so that disabled candidates are not unfairly penalised for incurring disability-related costs, which can often be quite high. The need for the change became apparent following the creation of the access to elected office for disabled people fund. The fund was established by this Government to provide grants to disabled people who are, or who go on to become, candidates at elections. The fund provides grants to help candidates to overcome any barriers to elected office that might arise as a result of their disability. However, electoral law considered those grants to be personal expenses and therefore deductable from candidates’ election expenses limits at local elections—the one poll where personal expenses counted towards a candidate’s expenses limit.
	Lords Amendment 87 therefore brings the treatment of personal expenses at local elections into line with the arrangements for other polls where they are already exempt. It would be particularly unfair to penalise disabled candidates standing at local elections for accepting
	fund grants or even incurring their own disability-related costs. The amendment does not as yet extend to local elections in Northern Ireland or Scotland, as those polls are devolved. However, we will work with the respective Governments to ensure that there is consistency.
	Much work has been done in this House, in the Lords and with external stakeholders to ensure that the Bill meets the principle of enhanced transparency for third parties who want to influence the outcome of elections, while preserving the essential freedom to speak out on issues. I should like to thank those who have contributed to the debates, and I reiterate my thanks to my noble Friends in the House of Lords. As has been said many times before, the purpose of the Bill is to bring greater awareness and clarity to campaigning activity. I believe that, through these amendments, that is what we can achieve.

Dawn Primarolo: I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft civil legal aid regulations. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 231, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Stephen Twigg: A total of 1 hour and 50 minutes has been allocated for this important debate on part 2 of the Bill, and the Leader of the House has just spoken for almost three quarters of an hour. That leaves the rest of us just over an hour to address an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have received dozens of items of correspondence in the past few days.
	Let us remind ourselves that the Bill started out as a piece of legislation on lobbying. It was meant to be the Government’s response to what the Prime Minister called
	“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
	However, the Bill has been a disaster from the very beginning. It was meant to address the next big scandal; instead, it has turned into an attack on civil society, on campaigners and on trade unions. It was meant to fix our broken politics; instead, it risks stifling free and open democratic debate. It was supposedly about stopping big money coming into our politics; instead, it creates the risk that civil society will face unnecessary and burdensome regulations.
	It was noted in our earlier discussions on part 1 that the process by which the Bill has been conducted through Parliament is entirely in line with the draconian nature of the Bill itself. There has been a distinct lack of scrutiny at every stage. It has been a shambles. Deliberations on the Bill in the other place finished yesterday—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is very interesting, but I must remind him that this is not a Third Reading debate. His remarks should refer specifically to the amendments before us, and I presume that he was about to speak to them before I interrupted him.

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful to you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will deal with the amendments in a moment, but it is important that we consider the context, because the speed with which the Bill has been considered, particularly in the past few days, has affected the ability
	of Members in this House to propose amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said in the debate on the previous group, Baroness Williams of Crosby said yesterday that the timings, whereby the Lords finished yesterday and the Commons resumed consideration today, are “ludicrous”.
	In moving on to deal with the amendments, I wish to praise one of the proponents of the amendments in the Lords, the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries. He has worked diligently to propose sensible amendments on behalf of his Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement in an attempt to improve a deeply flawed Bill. Weeks of engagement, careful drafting of amendments, debate and consultation led to a position where, as has been said, the Government were defeated on three amendments, one in part 1 and two in part 2. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, there are lessons to be learned by this Government from this process. Some of these issues might not have arisen had the Government published this legislation and enabled pre-legislative scrutiny to take place.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and all the other members of the Committee. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the Government parties have a majority on the Committee yet it offered a damning indictment of the way in which the Bill has been handled. The Committee stated:
	“The haste with which Lords amendments are returning to the Commons is yet another example of the way in which this Bill has been rushed through Parliament. The timetable that the Government has imposed for this Bill indicates a contempt for Parliament and a lack of belief in the value of parliamentary scrutiny.”
	I remind the House that last September we asked the Government to think again.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Context we have got, time we have not. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should now move on from the context—we are not on Third Reading—to the specifics. Other hon. Members are waiting to speak.

Stephen Twigg: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and let me move on to address some of the specific Lords amendments. First, may I welcome changes that have been made which respond to concerns that have been raised by civil society, but I urge the Government today, notwithstanding what the Leader of the House has just said, to go further and accept the Lords amendments on staffing costs and on constituency limits? Raising registration thresholds is a sensible move that will stop many small and local campaigners becoming entangled in complicated and burdensome regulations. Allowing large campaigners to provide a single expenditure report on behalf of a coalition of smaller campaigners will incentivise and help collaborative working by organisations of different sizes. Simplifying the reporting regime is also a sensible reform.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the burden on third-party organisations. Does he agree with the point made by Lord Harries that it would be almost impossible for the Electoral Commission to police third-party expenditure?

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely agree. Of course the Electoral Commission made the same point, and I will deal with that when I reach the relevant amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that important point on the record.
	The Government are proposing to legislate for a review of part 2 following the general election. A review is a sensible thing to carry out, and we support it. However, is there not an irony in rushing legislation through Parliament without appropriate levels of consultation and only at the end, after the event, to add a Government amendment for a serious and thorough review? Surely that is the wrong way round. For many of those who have been campaigning on this Bill and on the Lords amendments, this amendment is a cruel twist. Having been denied a serious process of consultation with the aim, which is blatantly obvious, of stifling campaigning before the next election, the Government now say that there will be a substantial review, but that it will be undertaken after the general election.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposal amounts to a tacit acceptance that there are fundamental defects in what has been proposed? Would it not be far more sensible if they were honest and straight and recognise that and delayed the whole process?

Stephen Twigg: Absolutely, but I will not be tempted too far down that path, because I must address the Lords amendments that are before us today. My hon. Friend, who led for us on this part of the Bill along with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), makes a powerful point.

Yasmin Qureshi: Is my hon. Friend not surprised at the Government’s attitude to this particular set of amendments? The Prime Minister talks about the big society, yet the way that this legislation has been formulated will stifle that same big society.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend makes her point extremely powerfully. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, a measure that was supposed to address a serious crisis around lobbying—we have addressed that in part 1 earlier this afternoon—has instead turned into something that is at real risk of chilling debate among citizens in the period between now and the next general election. The Bill is being rushed through so that it can take effect and be in place for the general election campaign in 2015. Then there is an offer of a serious review, but only after that election. That is churlish, and it is cheap politics from the Government parties. Let me refer to Steve Bubb, the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations. He said:
	“The government is clearly keen to show it is listening to civil society, but these amendments don't prevent the Bill curbing freedom of speech around elections.”
	The Select Committee agreed with that, and said:
	“We do not believe that the Government has clearly communicated the need for Part 2 of the Bill, or has provided a satisfactory account of the basis on which the new levels for registration and expenditure by third parties have been set.”

Charlie Elphicke: When it comes to the record of expenditure, does the hon. Gentleman believe that Sir Stephen Bubb is the best example to quote?

Stephen Twigg: There are many other examples that I could quote. I chose to quote Sir Stephen, but I could have quoted many other figures. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that there is pretty much unanimity among civil society, left to right, on this question. I will come back to that very point in a moment.
	In an attempt to improve what we see as a flawed Bill, we support Lords amendment 45. It is an amendment of incredible importance to campaigning groups and charities. It is clear and simple, and calls for the removal of background staffing costs from activities such as press conferences, media events, transport costs and public rallies. We absolutely support the aim of transparency and accountability. The amendment is not designed to take these activities out of the parameters of the regulation. It is about removing the background staff costs from the activities set out in new schedule 8A.

Andrew Lansley: It is amendment 108, not 45.

Stephen Twigg: I will take the Leader of the House at his word. Let me say “the relevant amendment”. I believe this relevant amendment is modest. It is primarily about not the costs themselves but the additional bureaucracy that this would involve. For many smaller charities, it would be incredibly difficult to distinguish the amount of time that the staff member spends on these activities from the time they spend on other activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned Lord Harries of Pentregarth. What he said in the other place is worth considering. It is easy to assess the amount of money that one will spend on hiring the hall for a public rally, because there is an invoice. However, there is no invoice for a member of staff or for the 10% of the time spent over four weeks carrying out the work.

Bob Stewart: Small charities will get nowhere near their limits, even if they put in all their staff costs. I suspect that charities will not have any problems with the limits whatsoever.

Stephen Twigg: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have already said that we welcome some of the changes to the registration and threshold levels, but there is still concern among charities about the impact this change could have and the Lords amendment simply clarifies and improves that element of the Bill.
	There is no desire in this House to create a regulatory system that is impossible to abide by. We do not want to stifle charities or the other voluntary and citizens’ organisations that are often the bedrock of our communities with further unnecessary red tape and changes to their accountancy structure. Many such organisations rely on volunteers, but they have to try to cost the time of their volunteers.
	I believe that the Lords amendment is a compromise. The Opposition share the preference that the Electoral Commission has expressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the Chair of the Select
	Committee, reminded us earlier, the Electoral Commission said that for the 2015 election it would prefer all staff costs to be removed. The amendment does not go as far as that recommendation, as it would merely count for background staff costs in relation to certain activities that are being brought into regulation.
	It is clear that some costs should be accounted for, such as those with an indirect relation to the canvassing of voters. It seems to me that it would not be very difficult to identify those costs, but organising a meeting, travelling to a venue or setting up a press conference might take merely a few minutes and it would be absurd to expect small and medium-sized organisations to have to account for that time, too. We see the amendment as a tidying up exercise that could save valuable time and money for charities and voluntary organisations while maintaining the purpose of transparency and accountability for those activities that relate directly to elections.
	When the amendment was considered in the other place, only three peers who were not from the Government Benches voted against it. The Government were defeated and on that basis I urge them to listen. Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat peer and a former long-standing Member of this House, made a powerful case, saying:
	“Bluntly, I do not think that anyone cares if a policy officer, whose job for the rest of the year is something completely different, spends a little time booking a room for an election rally, or incurs costs travelling to it…if the regulations go through without us thinking about the implications, they could unnecessarily tie up campaigners in accounting for their time—and, worse still, could deter some from campaigning at all.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 280.]

Stephen McCabe: Surely the problem is not about the amount of money. The danger is that the Government are completely ignoring the fact that small charities believe that the Government are setting out to tie them up in knots and prevent them from expressing opinions that they might find difficult. That is why this is regarded as an attack on freedom. Is that not the problem?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why throughout our discussion of the Bill we have used the phrase “chilling effect”. There are the direct effects of the legislation, but in a sense the greater concern is the one of which he has reminded us—its broader effect on the ability of civil society and citizens to participate in debates in the run-up to elections.
	Let me refer to other contributions in the other place. Lord Cormack—Patrick Cormack, a Conservative Member of this House for 40 years—urged the Government to take this step. He was supported by his Conservative colleague Lord Northbrook. They supported the amendment and argued that it would make life a lot easier for campaigners and would therefore give citizens a voice. I urge the Government to reconsider and, if they will not, I urge the House to stand with the other place on this amendment.
	Let me move on to constituency limits. We are supposed to be addressing the issue of big money in politics. Bearing down on third party spending while leaving political party spending unreformed seems to me to be unfair and does not represent the radical reform we are looking for. Just now, the Leader of the House spoke about party spending at the 2010 general election. The biggest third-party spender spent 4% of the amount spent by the Conservative party at the last election—4%.
	If the Government were serious about taking the big money out of politics, they need to confront their reliance on a tiny number of wealthy donors.

Charlie Elphicke: Who was responsible for that 4%, and did they include their staff costs?

Stephen Twigg: We are talking about 4%. I do not have the information to hand—that is the honest answer to that question.

Andrew Lansley: The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is Unison, which did not include staff costs.

Stephen Twigg: So this is what it is all about. Unison, on behalf of its members, spent 4%. The Conservative party spent 25 times as much as the biggest third-party spender, which suggests that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Andrew Gwynne: The real issue is that at the 2010 general election spending by all the political parties totalled £31 million. In that same election period, third-party organisations spent just £3 million.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend makes the point better than I did, and I thank him for doing so.
	Given that both the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee supported the restoration of the third-party limit to the levels in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we believe that that is the right approach. The Lords have advocated a clear, simplifying amendment, which would ensure that there are new reporting requirements for third parties in relation to telephone calls, literature to households and physical distribution in a defined area. The Government’s wider scope of activity, which would have to be reported, has been described by the Electoral Commission as unworkable and unenforceable. It said that
	“it will be challenging to obtain robust evidence to determine and sanction breaches in specific geographical areas, for example, regarding the effects of a leafleting campaign or mobile advertising in different constituencies…it is likely to be difficult to demonstrate that a breach meets the necessarily high test for using a stop notice to intervene to halt campaigning activity.”
	Surely there is nothing worse than our passing a new law that is unenforceable and unworkable.
	The Electoral Commission states that the Lords amendments would reduce its worries about enforceability, although it still has concerns about this part of the Bill. The Government’s plans risk increasing the administrative burden on charities and campaigning groups. Often, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, those groups are not organised regionally or locally, let alone by constituency, and they would have to modify their accounting structures and the way in which they monitored their expenditure.
	Let us consider the kind of cross-party campaigns that we are talking about: people campaigning on the badger cull; on HS2; on a hospital closure that might affect a region or sub-region; local food banks; and road extensions. There are many such examples, and I do not believe that the Leader of the House, in his response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, gave sufficient reassurance that the Government have
	addressed that issue. The Opposition support the Lords amendment, and we hope that the Government will have a change of heart.
	In the debate in the other place, Lord Cormack said that he welcomed amendments that were trying
	“to make a bad Bill better”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 281.]
	He urged the Government to improve the Bill by supporting the Lords amendment. The chief executive of the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action said that the Government have
	“turned an awful Bill into what might at best be described as a deeply flawed Bill.”
	They have another opportunity to try to mitigate the disaster of the original Bill. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that the Lords have proposed after careful and pragmatic consideration. For a party that used to talk a lot about the big society, it seems to me that without the Lords amendments, this is a cruel attempt at making society that bit smaller. The Lords amendments are sensible and modest on staffing costs and constituency limits, and they would help charities and other voluntary and campaigning organisations. If we keep the Lords amendments, they would improve the Bill considerably. I urge the House to accept them.

Stephen McPartland: It is a real privilege to contribute to this debate. I have contributed to all the debates on the Bill so far. I am quite optimistic about the Bill’s purposes, but today I want to confine my remarks to Lords amendments 108, 26 and 27. The Government reject amendments 26 and 27 because they are keen to take the big money out of politics and to ensure that local charities and organisations can be involved in campaigning. One of the things that has crept into every stage of debate on the Bill is that it is a gagging Bill. It is frightening good people in communities throughout the country.

Wayne David: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the big money out of politics, is he in favour of putting curbs on the expenditure of political parties, particularly the Conservative party?

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Gentleman makes a very political point and I want to confine my remarks to the amendments.
	Earlier, we heard an exchange between the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House regarding Unison and small local charities. The reality is that we need to stop the trend of large third party organisations—in the United States, they are called super PACs, or political action committees—attacking a small number of 90 to 100 constituencies that determine who wins the general election and will form the next Government. That is something that all hon. Members should be in favour of.

Stephen McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman provide some evidence for that assertion, which is the most ludicrous thing I have heard this afternoon?

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Gentleman disappoints and upsets me by suggesting that that is ludicrous remark. The reality is that most people in this country want big money to be taken out of politics. Part 1 of the Bill is all about lobbying.
	Some of the rhetoric that has come out of this House is frightening good people up and down the country and stopping them engaging in the process. One thing that hon. Members have intentionally not taken on board is that it is illegal for a charity to get involved in a political process and try to affect the outcome of an election. The whole purpose of the Bill is to do with third parties, but people seem to be advancing behind a screen of small charities. If we look at registration—[Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done a fantastic job as Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and I have read his reports with great interest. In fact, the first 15 of the conclusions and recommendations of the latest report, which was a very good job done overnight, agree with the Government, and accept that the Government have listened at every stage of the Bill. The Government have tried hard to listen to and work with local charities and community groups across the country to achieve some kind of success. [Interruption.] I have great respect for the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) who says that that is not what is happening in her area. I am proud to have 400 charities and community groups in my area. Not one has contacted me about the Bill. Not a single one is upset about it because none would have the financial resources to spend these amounts of money. If those charities contact me, most do so because they need money to keep going and to maintain the services that they are interested in. This is very much about taking the big money out of politics and stopping the formation of large super PACs, which can create huge problems.

Paul Flynn: Can the hon. Gentleman recall any massive public outcry against the excesses of organisations like the British Legion, Oxfam and Save the Children in order to get the Bill through? Can he recall the outcry, from the Prime Minister and everyone else, against the greedy activities of corporate lobbyists? The Bill is designed to distract attention from the Government’s failure to deal with corporate lobbyists by attaching blame to the minnows, the small charities.

Stephen McPartland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am very proud of the Government’s commitment to match all public contributions to Oxfam between now and mother’s day—hon. Members should contribute as much as they can. I am also proud that the Government are doing a lot of work with charities of all scopes and sizes. I cannot recall any such outcry, but the Government are trying to cut big money out of politics. From my point of view, this will stop the formation of large super PACs, which would contribute large amounts of money and resources to a small number of seats that will determine who wins the general election.

Yasmin Qureshi: The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that the Bill was designed to address the issue of big money in politics, but that is not what it will do. All it will do is attack small charities and
	third party organisations. The real money, which lies in lobbying Ministers and special advisers, has been ruled out. The Bill will not achieve the stated aim because it does not target those who need to be targeted.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I shall have to wrap up my remarks in a moment so that other Members can contribute.
	The reality is that the Bill proves that the Government listened. They are the most transparent Government ever. The Bill has been consistently improved by Members on both sides of both Houses, and that is something the Government should be given credit for. I am proud to be a part of this Government, who work closely with charities across the country. Every Member of this House works hard with charities in their local communities, and those charities will not be affected by the Bill. I shall therefore be pleased to support the Government today in the Lobby.
	On Lords amendment 108, which relates to excluding staff costs for charities and third party organisations, small charities in our constituencies will not be in a position to campaign in 80 or 90 other constituencies; they are just trying to survive in their small towns, cities and villages and to deliver for local people. Members should not use the frightening rhetoric that we have heard in relation to the Bill. That rhetoric stops charities and community groups engaging with us and getting involved in the political process. I urge all the community groups and charities in my constituency not to be frightened but to continue to engage with us and do what they always do, which is to campaign on policies and try to get them implemented.

Graham Allen: It is a great privilege to speak in the debate on this group of amendments—the first time I have done so when you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should I run dry, I will refer to my deputy Chair from her days on the Select Committee, who I am sure will be able to help me out!
	Before speaking to the amendments, I would like to thank one or two people. I thank colleagues in the second Chamber, who I think have done an excellent job. I would certainly like to put on the record my thanks to members of the Select Committee, our Clerk and staff for the brilliant job they have done yet again in very short order. I would also like to thank the Leader of the House. He gets a bit tetchy when Select Committees and Parliament do their job of holding the Government to account, but I think that he is a decent man. Although he sometimes tries not to, I think that he has inadvertently listened to one or two of the arguments made in the House and made some helpful changes in the second Chamber. I would like to put on the record my gratitude to him for that. If he can do it on a number of occasions, he can probably do so on two or three more, giving the Bill the wonderful finale that it so thoroughly deserves.
	We have heard about the changes proposed in the other House with which the Government wish to disagree. Given the time available, I will not go over them again, but they relate to staff costs and material costs not being included in the definition of the amount to be spent, which will of course diminish. I urge the House and the Government to support these sensible proposals as they are supported by the Select Committee.
	In principle, we would not wish staff costs to be excluded, but on this occasion, as we are running into an almost immediate election, with 469 days until election day, it makes sense to be practical by not including them.
	The Leader of the House referred to the three amendments on reporting requirements that I tabled on behalf of my Committee. The essence of this is that we are dealing with charities. As representatives of the second Chamber eloquently explained, many of those institutions do not have the infrastructure to handle heavy bureaucracy. The Government have accepted that argument, to some extent, and I ask them to look again at our amendments. It is surely not in anyone’s interests, least of all those of the Government, who say so much about deregulation, to place such huge amounts of red tape and bureaucratic burdens on to charitable institutions that are trying to participate in the democratic life of this country. Difficulties are placed in their way by excessive reporting, and surely that is not what the Government are trying to achieve.
	The crux of the matter is that we are coming up to one minute to midnight and no one has identified the problem that part 2 is intended to address. What was the burning issue that led people to demand it? Unlike part 1 on lobbying, where clearly abuses were taking place, although none of them is being addressed, part 2 is not needed to deal with any abuses, public scandals or big political issues. Even now, at one minute to midnight, the question of what the problem is has not been satisfactorily answered.

Paul Flynn: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the Government have done a clever bit of magician’s deception in successfully stirring up a great deal of public anger about the charities part of the Bill in order to distract attention from the fact that the much needed first part of the Bill is woefully inadequate?

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend is a very eminent and distinguished member of the Select Committee, but he is a very cynical person if he believes that that is why the Government have done this. [Interruption.] No, we are talking about charities and I think we should be charitable in saying that it is not conspiracy but incompetence.

Hywel Francis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Allen: I will, but for the last time because I know that colleagues want to speak.

Hywel Francis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in effect, part 2 restricts rather than regulates civil society?

Graham Allen: Very much so, unfortunately. That is why the amendments improve a Bill that needed and still needs a great deal of improvement. I was quoted as saying that it was a dog’s breakfast, and one hon. Member said that that was an insult to canine nutritionists. The Deputy Leader of the House said that the Bill has been transformed. Well, the dog’s breakfast might have been transformed from Winalot to Pedigree Chum, but it is probably not much better than that.
	The issue is incredibly serious. There will now be an opportunity once every five years for charities, voluntary sector organisations and everyone else to participate in
	a general election, which is the lifeblood of our democracy, with its give and take and its challenge from all sorts of organisations from the League Against Cruel Sports to the Countryside Alliance. People are entitled to participate and we should facilitate their participation, but we are not doing so.
	For example, people have said that there will be severe unintended consequences, that they do not believe there is legal certainty and that they fear the Bill. Who are the crazy people saying that? They signed a letter. They are Rabbi Sybil Sheridan of the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK, Neil Thorns of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Farooq Murad of the Muslim Council of Britain and Paul Parker of the Quakers—absolutely fringe elements who are a danger to society! They genuinely feel that their activities during a period of political interaction and give and take could land them in trouble.
	I speak as the chair of a charity, and should perhaps declare an interest as such. From my experience of sitting through every day spent on the Bill in this House, I do not have the confidence to give my charity a definitive answer about whether we could be caught by some of the provisions. The question is not whether my charity or any other wishes that to happen, but whether it is possible. That possibility is the reason there is a chilling effect, not that charities will clearly be caught.
	What do we rely on? We rely on the good faith of the Leader of the House. I am sure he means it when he says, “Don’t worry—all that activity won’t be caught.” If that is the case, why do we need the Bill when we already have very strong provisions to catch people, particularly in the charitable field, who seek to offend? I again ask why. What problem are we trying to address? There is a chilling effect, and reassurances in Hansard and keeping our fingers crossed will not be enough.
	We have a fixed-term Parliament, and if we choose to take the opportunity, that will give us a year’s interactive, open debate during which we might do cross-party or all-party stuff to clear all the dross out of the way, with a ding-dong during the last 28 days as normal. We might start to work together to find answers, and to campaign together with civic society and all those institutions, like our charities and voluntary sector organisations. What a wonderful debate and what a great opportunity it would be for our democracy to have such a year; we know that the election is 469 days away. It could be a great liberating opportunity, but what will happen if Parliament and the Government are held in contempt by the electorate? We will throw away that opportunity and be unable to take the chance to involve people. In one or two years’ time, we will look back at this as a terrible wasted opportunity.

John Thurso: I briefly repeat a comment I made on the previous group of amendments: the Bill left this place in an unsatisfactory state, but went to the Lords and had a considerable amount of work done to it. A huge number of the amendments made were either proposed by the Government after listening or accepted by them following a debate. I repeat that my noble Friend Lord Tyler was central to much of that process, and the Front Benchers Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, among others, did a splendid job in that regard.
	When I spoke to Lord Tyler, he told me that he shared two of my major concerns, which he expressed very well, about the degree of bureaucracy and the degree of complexity, and everything he did was to try to remove bureaucracy or complexity. He made the very good point that the Bill builds on the PPERA, but that the process of engagement with charities and the third sector threw up the fact that many of them did not understand that earlier legislation and were not perhaps compliant with it. Therefore, if nothing else, this process has helped them to understand what is necessary.
	I will touch quickly on the Lords amendments that have succeeded. The fundamental change was raising the registration rates to £20,000 for England and £10,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We began with the position that the rates would be halved and they have now been doubled. That is a significant change. It has lifted the vast majority of smaller organisations and charities out of the legislation completely. That is a considerable concession by the Government and it has achieved a great deal. I make the small point, in parentheses, that I do not know why the rate for Scotland should be half that for England, but I shall move on quickly.
	Charities also had a critical concern about coalitions. That has been dealt with by removing all the burdens from low-spending participants in a campaigning coalition and allowing the larger campaigners to provide a single report on their behalf. That has lifted a large potential burden. That change, along with other changes such as removing the requirement for nil returns and the review, has changed dramatically the way in which the Bill can be viewed. It is now much closer to achieving the principles that I want to see, which are greater transparency and accountability in third parties. It is also less heavy-handed with those who are not a target, such as small, local organisations and charities—virtually all charities are exempt.
	This process has allowed good, informed criticism to be taken on board. It has also allowed us to flush out some very ill-informed criticism. I received an e-mail from a constituent yesterday urging me to support Lord Tyler, which of course is always a pleasure, because he wanted to continue to campaign against wind farms in our area and because he wanted to be able to campaign against the building of houses on the battlefield of Culloden if anybody ever suggested it. I was able to point out to him with complete certainty that those two things would never be covered by the Bill. There are many people out there who think that it does cover such matters. It is important to have the opportunity to dispel those ideas.
	I will turn to the two principal amendments that I wanted to discuss. Lords amendment 108 removes a huge raft of things that were included in the proposal before their lordships. I took the trouble of finding schedule 3 in its unamended form. The Lords amendment relates to sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of paragraph 1, which include not only transport costs, but some pretty heavy bits of expenditure, such as public rallies. Their lordships were right to think that they had cut too far and too hard.
	I urge my colleagues to support the Government in rejecting Lords amendment 108 for a simple procedural reason. If we accept it, that will be the end of the
	matter. However, if we do not accept it and send it back to their lordships, they can, through ping-pong, propose something that takes account of the justifiable concerns about transport and so forth but does not go as far as this amendment, which has clearly gone too far.

Mark Durkan: Lords amendment 108 does not take out the major costs of rallies and big events. It takes out only any costs in respect of remuneration or expenses that are payable to staff in relation to rallies. It does not relate to the overall costs of rallies, such as equipment and hiring space. Those would not be taken out by the amendment.

John Thurso: I am well aware of that. However, the staff costs, particularly in relation to sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), will be considerable, so they should be included. I would like to give their lordships the chance to think again about that.
	On Lords amendments 26 and 27, I should explain that subsection (1) of proposed new section 2A in Lords amendment 26 is an amendment made on Report by my noble Friend Lord Tyler. It is a clear amendment that does exactly what it says on the tin, and I have almost complete sympathy with it. Lord Harries added subsections (2) and (3), which render the amendment unworkable. If I may paraphrase what Lord Tyler said, the lawyers have got hold of it and they have gone far too far. In particular, it is almost impossible to work out how one would begin to consider policing subsection (3), which is so defective that it has rendered what was a sound amendment almost completely ineffective.
	To those of us who like legislating, it might be quite fun to look at different definitions, but I seriously contend—I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who often helps me out on such matters, will agree—that subsections (2) and (3), particularly subsection (3), put a coach and horses through the very good amendment my noble Friend put through on Report in the other place. I suggest, therefore, that we reject it, because their lordships should be allowed to have another look at it. The intention was to simplify the Bill, making it easier and taking out bureaucracy. The amendment would, however, introduce massive complexity and a great deal of bureaucracy, and runs utterly counter to the other amendments that have been accepted. For that reason, I accept the Government’s view that it cannot be accepted and that their lordships should try again.
	My final point is that there is an inconsistency. The limit is now £9,750, and the registration is £10,000. The fact is that any organisation in our constituencies could spend £9,000 and we would not know about it until after the election. It is a shame that we have not had a chance to address such an unintended consequence.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I just point out to the House that we have some 17 minutes left of this debate and that if each Member takes only just more than six minutes then everyone will have a chance to speak? If Members speak for longer than that, not everyone will have a chance to speak. It is up to Members to behave as they see fit.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the shadow Minister on raising important issues. I do not say for one second that the Minister is ignoring them, but the fact is that charities are not convinced by the arguments put forward. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said that the charities in his area have not contacted him with concerns. I can tell him that the charities in my constituency, and across the whole of Northern Ireland, have stated clearly that they do have concerns, and I want to present them now.
	I support Lords amendment 45, which was tabled by Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He outlined some of the issues relating to seeking to narrow the requirement for third- party campaigners to account for staff costs, which has come up again and again. Charities in my area are deeply concerned by the original proposals, and we must address this. It is beneficial for staff costs to continue to be included in controlled expenditure in relation to election material, marketing and canvassing, and when they directly relate to communicating with the electorate. The simplification of the requirements will make them much more understandable and workable for charities. I agree with commentators who say that that will make it easier to comply with the proposed legislation. One need only ask any farmer about being bound in red tape by European legislation that stifles everything to understand why it would be prohibitive for charities to undertake the original provisions.

Eilidh Whiteford: Might that not also deter small charities from campaigning in the first place, as well as placing those that do under a regulatory burden?

Jim Shannon: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady, and that issue will run through all my comments.
	I am thankful that the Lords has seen fit to make these amendments for our consideration. Were the amendments to fail, many charities could be prevented from doing charitable work, which would be a tragedy. The amendment on constituency limits will rightly reduce the regulatory burden on charities and voluntary organisations campaigning in individual constituencies. In particular, it will more clearly define the activities covered by the constituency controls so that they cover spending on election material sent to voters and households and unsolicited phone contact with them.

Alan Reid: I am concerned that the amendment would exempt bill boards and advertising hoardings and allow a vast amount of money to be spent on them throughout our constituencies, without coming under the constituency limit.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and clearly those are issues that all charities have concerns about.
	The amendment would also reduce the amount of red tape for charities simply seeking to help people who are unable to bear their own burdens. I have been contacted by charities—in Northern Ireland and across the UK—highlighting how some constituency boundaries split towns between two constituencies. For example, Ballynahinch is not only in my beautiful constituency, but in the constituency of South Down—the hon. Member
	for South Down (Ms Ritchie) is not here—which makes clear why the amendment is necessary. I hope, therefore, that the House, like me, will support it.
	I also support the amendment that would allow charities that work together in coalition to campaign together. Our recent debate on rare diseases, such as Duchenne and Prader-Willi, in Westminster Hall brought together and gave a voice to many different charity and health bodies. It was clear that such charities were so small that it made more sense for them to campaign and fundraise together under the umbrella of rare diseases while still working for their individual illnesses. The current situation is working and should be allowed to continue working, and the amendment goes some way to allowing them to work together to the benefit of all member groups. It would also eliminate the unfair anomaly in existing law that means that a partner in a charity coalition campaign on one issue would be limited in its spending on other, totally unrelated issues by virtue of the continued spending by other charity coalition partners.
	Mencap has said:
	“However, we are still concerned about the potential of the Bill to curtail legitimate campaigning by voluntary and community organisations. On a practical level we are concerned that staffing costs are still to be included in regulated expenditure and the rules around separate organisations working on joint campaigns are still unclear. We are most concerned about the subjective way in which the Bill aims to determine the intentions of a campaigning activity. Charities are already bound by charity law which prohibits party political campaigning. However, this Bill applies to campaigning by organisations which might influence elections—whether they intended to or not.”
	We need clarity on how that issue of intention to influence will be dealt with, but we have not had it from the Minister. I agree with the comments of the shadow Minister and of the charities and organisations concerned, and I support the Lords amendments.

Hywel Francis: At the outset, I should say that I speak this afternoon as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Many of these amendments relate to amendments suggested in the Committee’s report, and I wish to acknowledge that the Government have moved considerably in its direction, particularly in relation to raising the threshold for non-party organisations to register with the Electoral Commission; to raising the spending limits for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; to reducing the regulatory period for the 2015 general election; and to introducing a review of non-party campaigning rules after the 2015 general election. Once again, we wish to place on the record our thanks to the Government for making those changes.
	Let me move on to deal with some of the specific amendments. Given the concerns about the potential “chilling effect” of the Bill, it will be important for any post-election review of the non-party campaigning rules to include a careful examination of the impact of part 2 on campaigners’ rights to freedom of expression and association. Does the Minister envisage that such a review will specifically examine the practical effects of the Bill’s provisions on campaigners’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association?
	It is worth noting some of the comments made in the second Chamber about the Government’s proposed post-election review of non-party campaigning rules after the 2015 general election. In withdrawing his amendment to exclude charities from the rules, Lord Phillips of Sudbury said that the review of the workings of this legislation in the wake of the 2015 election would be vital. In the discussion on the Government’s amendment to establish the post-election review, Lord Harries also stressed that this review would be essential.
	In welcoming the Government amendment, let me nevertheless express once again unease at the fact that so much reliance is being placed on post-legislative scrutiny, particularly when there is an election in the intervening period, and repeat the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the lack of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny prior to the Bill’s publication.
	Before concluding, let me draw attention, as other Members from across the Chamber have done, to the views and contribution of constituents. One of my constituents, Sylvia John of Briton Ferry, is one of many who wrote to urge me to support the Lords amendments, which I shall do later. Her words were echoed by Children in Wales, one of the most respected charitable organisations in Wales, whose chief executive, Catriona Williams said that the Bill remains “deeply problematic”.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes specific reference to Wales, and it is important to bear in mind that this Bill will impact not just on general elections, but on elections in the devolved areas of the United Kingdom, too.

Hywel Francis: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
	Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and his Select Committee for the tremendous work carried out right up to today, and particularly last night, to deliver the final report. We have had the benefit of being able to read it today. I also commend the work of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, under the wise chairmanship of Lord Harries of Pentregarth.

Mark Durkan: As a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I shall speak in support of the amendments we tabled, which would further enhance some of the Lords amendments. I welcome the amendments made in the House of Lords and I want to acknowledge that the Government have listened to some concerns. In particular, the Deputy Leader of the House made a visit to Belfast and heard from a number of groups, large and small, about the range of concerns they had. He signalled some of the adjustments that needed to be made and followed through on some of them, but limitations remain on others. People were pleased to have that direct hearing, but they are not necessarily satisfied that the Bill’s current shape and scope allays all their concerns. They are particularly concerned about the Government’s attempt to overturn Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108. That is what is providing the residual apprehension or concern about how things will go.
	Some amendments were tabled, on the Select Committee’s behalf, by our Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). Some propose to take some of the Lords amendments further and to de-clutter by reducing the red tape and providing a more sensible application and interpretation of the Bill. That is what the amendments are about; they are not about creating any gaping loopholes for big money to surge in and influence election campaigns, or indeed other things.
	The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said that he had had no word from any of the small charities and other small groups in his constituency. I have had word from a great many, not just in my constituency but well beyond. Moreover, I have heard from no one about big money being thwarted. This is a major worry for groups who want to be involved in positive campaigns—not to influence election outcomes, but, perhaps, to influence people’s input by encouraging them to participate in elections and think and ask about the issues that they entail. Usually, in the year before an election campaign they are encouraging parties to make manifesto commitments.

Stephen McCabe: In all his research on the Bill, has the hon. Gentleman come across any justification for the restriction to 2% of the maximum spend? Is there a rationale for it, or did the Government pluck it out of thin air?

Mark Durkan: I think that it may have been the latter. I have heard no significant or understandable rationale on which I have been able to rely.
	While I accept that, in theoretical and intellectual terms, we want to ensure that we are proof against the PAC model in the future, I think that if we really want to prevent big money from influencing election campaigns, we ought to be legislating against what people such as Lord Ashcroft are able to do with their money, and its impact—its targeted impact—on particular constituencies. But of course that is not happening.
	As for the legitimate third-party campaigning that we are discussing in the context of Northern Ireland, it is not influencing the outcome of elections, but is serving as a positive additive to politics, and helping to move our politics on. Money is not used to launch rallies aimed at mobilising voting in a particular direction, and encouraging people to vote for this or that party. People are generally encouraged to create hustings in order to improve the quality of debate, and to widen the range of issues that are discussed beyond the usual binary divide in Northern Ireland.
	We should not be legislating in the pretence that some big problem or subversive interest is at work, and we should not be legislating in ways that disable the healthy and legitimate engagement in politics that I thought we all wanted to encourage.
	Lords amendment 16 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 17 and 104 to 107 agreed to.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Controlled Expenditure: Qualifying Expenses

Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 108.—(Mr Lansley.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 310, Noes 278.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 108 disagreed to.
	More than four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Clause 28
	 — 
	Constituency limits

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26.—(Mr. Lansley.)
	The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 274.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 26 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment 27 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 19 to 25, 28 to 74, 109 to 116, 18 and 75 to 100 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 88 and 100.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 108, 26 and 27;
	That Greg Clark, Nic Dakin, Greg Hands, John Thurso and Stephen Twigg be members of the Committee;
	That Greg Clark be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Commission Work Programme 2014

[Relevant document: The Twenty-fifth report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC83-xxii.]

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15521/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2014; agrees that this document is a useful tool for planning the Government’s and Parliament’s engagement with the EU in 2014; and supports the Government’s view that measures which promote growth and jobs in the EU, including measures towards completing the Single Market, are the top priority.
	This year’s work programme is the last for the current European Commission. It covers what the Commission is giving priority to in the final months of its mandate as well as some new initiatives and, of course, it does not cover everything that the European Union and its institutions are doing.
	In last year’s debate on the annual work programme, right hon. and hon. Members focused in particular on the process of our scrutiny of European legislation. Prior to this year’s debate, the House’s European Scrutiny Committee published a report on reforming scrutiny in this place. I want to give the House an assurance that the Government are considering that report with the seriousness that it would expect and we will publish our response as soon as we can.

William Cash: As the Minister has referred to the report and to the formal response that the Government must give to it under the conventions of the House, I think it might be appropriate to mention the reactions of some members of the Government—I will not say everybody—to the proposals. They were described as “unrealistic” by one Minister and “unworkable” by another. That is not entirely consistent with the formalities of the convention that applies, but I think we will find that we will get a good response, as the Government have also said that it is a very important study.

David Lidington: This is an important study, which makes a large number of recommendations. The recommendations in my hon. Friend’s report have a bearing on business, which is the responsibility of pretty much every Government Department. The discussions that we are having at both official and ministerial level reflect the breadth of the areas of policy covered by my hon. Friend’s Committee.
	The Committee noted, in its report recommending today’s debate, that—

Wayne David: rose—

David Lidington: One second.
	The Committee recommended that the debate on the work programme should provide a useful starting point in the upstream scrutiny of EU proposals, and should help Parliament to make an early assessment of those dossiers in which parliamentarians are likely to take particular interest.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to intervene immediately after the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), because we read in the press that the Prime Minister had received a letter signed by 95 Conservative MPs supporting what the European Scrutiny Committee had said. Has the Prime Minister in fact received that letter, and do we know who those 95 people are?

David Lidington: I am afraid that I do not inspect the Prime Minister’s correspondence on a daily basis. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out more about that letter he could go and talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, or my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), or others who helped to draft that letter.

Chris Williamson: rose—

David Lidington: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but may I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am conscious of the fact that we have a limited amount of time for the debate. There are a number of Members on both sides of the House who want to participate, so while I shall try to give way wherever possible I am conscious of the need to allow others to speak.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister is absolutely right, and he has been most courteous to the House. I trust that other Members will be courteous to the House in keeping interventions brief.

David Lidington: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson).

Chris Williamson: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said about that letter, it was reported yesterday in the Evening Standard that a Minister had described the people who had signed the letter as “thick”. Will the Minister say whether it was him or another Foreign Office Minister who did so?

David Lidington: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. If he directs his attention to the Government motion and, for that matter, to the European Scrutiny Committee report referring the document for debate, he will find that nowhere in the motion or the report is there any reference to letters from any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House. I propose to concentrate on the matters that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred to the House for attention and consideration.

Eleanor Laing: Order. May I again reflect what the Minister has said? The matter before us does not concern letters to the Prime Minister. Members are required to stick to the matter before us.

David Lidington: This year, a new European Commission will take office. An important task is therefore to focus on those areas of the work programme that the United Kingdom Government would like to see as continued priorities for the next European Commission. It should
	come as no surprise to the House if I say that the Government’s priority is focusing on measures that encourage growth and jobs, and which are intended to deepen the single market, and on better and less costly and burdensome regulation so that we can free businesses in Britain and throughout Europe to compete vigorously in the global marketplace.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a sensible reform for the European Union is to spend more than the 2% of its budget that it currently spends on trade on further promoting free trade agreements with countries around the world that could help precisely in generating jobs and growth in all EU member states?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The directorate general dealing with trade does a pretty effective job, although, as she says, it accounts for only a very small proportion of the EU’s overall spending. If we are looking for a reallocation of priorities, I would agree that in terms of resource, good people, political priority and political will, global trade agreements should be a key focus for the UK and Europe as a whole.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend sense in the Commission’s work programme, including in the transition to the new Commission, a move to that agenda, to which we attach such importance for growth?

David Lidington: I do find in the Commission’s work programme an explicit acknowledgement that, for example, the EU is currently falling short in the implementation of the single market in services and the digital economy, and that more needs to be done in those respects. I also find an explicit commitment by the Commission to the priority that needs to be given to growth and jobs. In talking to Ministers from other European countries, I find them acutely aware of the challenge that Governments throughout the continent face from global competition, but also from the high levels of youth unemployment, which, tragically, we see in far too many countries.

Alan Beith: May I give my right hon. Friend an example of an area in which the work programme includes a commitment that is burdensome to business, which has been scrutinised by the Justice Committee and needs to be changed, and it is the draft data protection directive?

David Lidington: Yes, my right hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows, the Government’s belief is that data protection legislation is better handled by way of a directive than by way of a regulation, which does not allow properly for subsidiarity and the different systems in different member states. As a Government we are determined to ensure that the modernised data protection regime, which we need, in part to serve a continental-wide digital economy, is shaped in such a way as to minimise the regulatory burden on businesses. We want those data protection arrangements to be such that, yes, they give adequate protection to data subjects, but they do not hinder business from going out, winning the contracts and creating the jobs, as we all want to see them do.

Graham Stringer: After a slow start the Government have realised the economic benefits of fracking to this country’s economy. Under annex 2, on new initiatives, there are the regulations that will apply to fracking across Europe. Does he share my worries that there are members of the Commission who want to use those regulations to stop the exploitation of shale gas?

David Lidington: There are people in the institutions and elsewhere who certainly support policies that would inhibit the development of shale gas resources. We have made it very clear, from the Prime Minister down, that we believe that such a course would be wrong and would be a betrayal of the interests of European business, of European consumers, who would like to benefit from the lower energy prices that shale development would bring, and above all of the interests of those who are out of work, where a shale gas industry would not only provide additional employment in its own right, but, by maintaining a downward pressure on energy prices, would make it possible for more companies throughout the economy to hire additional employees. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Governments of countries such as Poland and Hungary, which also have a clear commitment to the freedom of member states to develop shale gas resources in the interests of consumers and producers alike.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: No, the hon. Gentleman has had a bite of the cherry already, so I will make some progress.
	It is good that the Commission has focused on continuing negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. The Government estimate that the benefits of that deal to this country could be worth up to £10 billion a year, or more than £380 for every household. Frankly, I would like to have seen even greater priority and emphasis in the work programme for that potentially transformative deal. I would also like other ongoing negotiations to have been mentioned, such as those on an EU-Japan free trade agreement, which we estimate could be worth £5 billion a year for the United Kingdom.
	The Government also welcome the objectives of the telecoms package and the other measures in the work programme that would contribute towards the completion of the digital single market. For the EU to remain competitive, the single market needs to keep pace with developments in the digital economy. The digital economy is not only helping to connect, inform and entertain us, but driving innovation and growth across our economies.

Douglas Carswell: The Minister talks about the need to deepen and complete the single market. At the same time he complains about excessive regulation. Does he not recognise that much of the excessive regulation has been brought in under the auspices of a single market, and that by extending and deepening it, he greatly expands the scope for excessive regulation, which produces economic stagnation?

David Lidington: I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but—if I may say so—I think that he oversells his case. It is true that we can have European regulation, just as we can at national level, that is overly prescriptive,
	overly complicated and far too costly as far as business is concerned. Therefore, one of the tests that we have in mind when judging Commission proposals is whether in the first place the introduction of a single regulatory regime to govern a European single market would produce a net benefit for business, compared with the 28 different national regimes that would be eliminated as a consequence of a single European regulatory framework. Also, Ministers in this Government have argued repeatedly that we think the Commission could make more use of the principle of mutual recognition, which after all was made clear in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice some decades ago in the Cassis de Dijon case, rather than relying all the time on the detailed harmonisation of national arrangements, which can easily lead one into the sort of overly complicated system that my hon. Friend fears.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my right hon. Friend agree that completing the single market for services is so important for jobs and growth across the EU that we should be seriously considering whether those countries that want to proceed should continue under enhanced co-operation, leaving behind those counties, like Germany, that are far less willing to open their markets for services to other successful counties, like Britain?

David Lidington: Although my first preference would be a successful negotiation that would deliver a thoroughgoing single market in services across the whole European Union, if that ends up not being possible, my hon. Friend’s point about ending up with those countries that are willing to commit themselves to earlier and faster liberalisation doing so under enhanced co-operation is a very strong one indeed.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
	Securing investment in Europe’s energy infrastructure is critical to our long-term, sustainable economic growth. A cost-effective, flexible and ambitious 2030 climate and energy framework will provide clear and stable conditions for the up to €1 trillion of investment that European countries will require in the energy sector over the next 10 years. If designed in the right way, such a framework would complement domestic reforms here to ensure that the investment is forthcoming.
	As has already been said in interventions, reducing the regulatory burdens on business is integral to boosting economic growth. The Commission’s REFIT—regulatory fitness and performance—programme was a welcome step towards reducing the burden of EU regulation on business and eliminating those barriers to growth, but we believe that the Commission needs to be more ambitious still to ensure that businesses feel real change.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I remind the Minister that the REFIT programme includes proposals for the harmonising of VAT and the introduction of a common corporation tax base, both of which Her Majesty’s Government oppose. It is not about deregulating; it is about increasing the power of the European Union.

David Lidington: There will indeed be measures in the REFIT package, as in other Commission proposals, with which we disagree. We have made it clear that we will continue to resist both the proposals to which my hon. Friend alludes.
	It is also fair to say, though, that at a time when the Government are urging the Commission to act on the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s EU business taskforce, the Commission has already introduced some measures that implement what this Government, either off their own bat or by means of the business taskforce report, have been recommending. We have seen practical and proportionate rules on country of origin labelling for food and a member state agreement to a streamlined approach to the clinical trials regulation, with formal agreement due later this year. In addition, the Commission has committed itself to withdrawing the access to justice in environmental matters directive, as the business taskforce explicitly called on it to do.
	We now want further action on the 30 specific recommendations in the business taskforce’s report, including on the REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—directive to lessen its burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular. Such radical, business-friendly reform is in the interests of job creation and business growth not just here in the United Kingdom but throughout the continent as a whole. We welcome the Commission’s commitment not to table new health and safety rules for hairdressers or to introduce new rules on ergonomics, and its commitment to withdraw a number of other proposals that we have long opposed on the grounds that they would impose unnecessary costs on business.
	However, with regard to the REFIT package, it is disappointing that the majority of the repeals and withdrawals in the work programme relate to obsolete measures. We think that future withdrawals should focus on EU measures that impose the biggest burdens on businesses and do not deliver significant and commensurate benefits. We will not only continue to press this with the Commission but look for every opportunity to build alliances with other EU member states and, for that matter, with enlightened and supportive members in the European Parliament like our colleague Mr Malcolm Harbour, to ensure that the efforts to drive down business costs and increase the competiveness of European businesses are maintained.

Wayne David: rose—

David Lidington: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am going to make progress because I have been speaking for quite a long time.

Wayne David: When the Minister says that aspects of the EU work programme are disappointing, does he not really mean that the Government have failed to influence the Commission successfully?

David Lidington: No. I do not think that any member state would be able to say that they unreservedly welcome and endorse absolutely everything in the Commission’s work programme. Of the measures described in the work programme, there are some that we positively welcome, others where we think the proposal seems okay at first sight but we very much want to examine
	the detail of the promised measure before we come to a final conclusion, and others where we are quite open in saying that we think the Commission’s suggestion is mistaken. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have already expressed considerable concerns about the data protection package, and we will continue to negotiate to try to ensure that it does not over-burden business while providing adequate protection for personal data.
	Nor can we welcome the draft regulation to establish a European public prosecutor’s office. We believe that the Commission’s evidence for this proposal is weak, and we will continue to challenge it on its unacceptable, rather summary response to the yellow card that national Parliaments raised about it.

James Clappison: rose—

David Lidington: I give way to my hon. Friend, who follows this issue very closely.

James Clappison: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he convey to the Commission how deeply disappointing it is for Parliaments to gather the requisite number of signatures for petitions from individual Chambers and for the Commission then peremptorily to say that it will go ahead all the same? That is very dispiriting for Parliaments.

David Lidington: I completely agree. It would be easier to accept the Commission’s unwelcome decision if, at the very least, it had produced a detailed explanation of its reasons and showed proper respect for the 19 different reasoned opinions. I continue to agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal is wrong, but I made it very clear at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council that I regarded the Commission’s behaviour on the measure as unacceptable, and I was pleased that Ministers from some other member states then spoke out and endorsed my criticisms of its approach.
	The House will be aware that tomorrow marks a year since the Prime Minister’s speech setting out a vision for European Union reform. Today, there is growing support across Europe for reform and for accepting that it needs to become more competitive and democratic, so that it is a Europe in which, to quote the Dutch Government, our enterprise is based on being
	“European where necessary, national where possible.”
	As I said last week at the very stimulating conference organised by Open Europe and the Fresh Start group, we will get behind the proposal made by the Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, for a governance manifesto for the new Commission—agreed by the 28 accountable national Heads of State and Government—that lays out what Europe should focus on and, crucially, what should be left to member states. On the new items in the work programme, the House can be assured that we will be vigilant in relation to the subsidiarity principle and do our utmost to ensure that action is taken at EU level only when that is the correct level to take proposals forward.
	We already work with partners across Europe to deliver concrete changes that benefit this country and every EU member state, including the first ever cut in the EU’s seven-year budget, which protects the British rebate; agreement on a single European patent after 23 years of negotiation, which safeguards the intellectual
	property of innovative British businesses; keeping the UK out of any eurozone bail-out facility, which safeguards British interests; and abolishing the obscene policy of discarding caught fish, which is a key element of wholesale reform of the common fisheries policy. It can therefore be done: reform is possible and it is happening. However, the Government recognise that there is much more still to do to make Europe more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable. Ministers will use every opportunity to push forward that agenda.

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the European Commission’s work programme for 2014. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its useful report. The Committee suggested that a debate before Christmas would be timely, and given the thinness of the Government’s agenda for this House, it is surprising that this debate has not taken place earlier.
	The work programme published on 22 October is shorter than usual, not least because European Parliament elections are coming up in May and because the new college of Commissioners will take office later this year. Our ability to influence the work programme’s direction to achieve UK objectives and protect our national interest depends in no small part on having good relationships with our allies in Europe. Yet, instead of defending our interests in Europe, the Prime Minister all too often puts party before country, opting for policy positions and language that appease Eurosceptic Back Benchers and alienate allies in Europe.
	The result is that the Prime Minister finds himself in an increasingly isolated position in Europe. Indeed, the Prime Minister has been attracting an increasing number of openly hostile comments from crucial European allies. Germany, Poland, France and Bulgaria are our allies in Europe, and yet senior figures in their Governments—most recently the German Foreign Minister, Mr Steinmeier—have given briefings on their profound disagreement with our Prime Minister’s views. The political weight of the people in those countries who have made their disagreement with the Prime Minister known and the tone in which they have done so are concerning. Once again, the Conservative party is pushing Britain into the isolated corner that John Major’s Government left us in.
	The Prime Minister has promised to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union. He said that treaty change will deliver important opportunities to repatriate a series of powers that are apparently held by the EU and which he thinks ought to be back with the United Kingdom. Having looked at the work programme, I confess that I cannot see a major treaty change in preparation. It is far from clear that the treaty change on which the Conservative party is banking is likely to happen soon. If the Minister were to be honest with the House about that, I suspect that he would say that he is starting to realise that the game is up. The Chancellor’s recent plaintive call for treaty change in the context of banking union gave the impression that he knows that the possibility of such treaty change is retreating. Even if we assume that treaty change will happen, we still have absolutely no idea which powers the Conservative party wants to repatriate. The Minister has once again failed to tell us today.
	The work programme priorities for 2014—economic and monetary union; smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; justice and security; and external action—are critical to the UK. In particular, a strong and stable economy in Europe is crucial to British jobs, security and prosperity. As the UK continues to battle through the Government’s cost of living crisis, with falling wages, rising prices and stagnating growth, our continued membership of and active engagement in the European Union are crucial to Britain’s economic prosperity. Almost half the UK’s trade and foreign investments come from the European Union. More than 3.5 million jobs in the UK depend on our membership of the EU.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the figure of 3 million jobs is a monumental myth. It came out 10 years ago and was denied by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which described it as Goebbels propaganda.

Gareth Thomas: The information that I gave was confirmed as recently as 2011 in a written parliamentary answer from the Foreign Secretary. Who am I not to believe the Foreign Secretary on a matter of such importance? If the Foreign Secretary’s view is not good enough for the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, perhaps I could point him towards recent research by the CBI, which estimates that our membership of the EU is worth between £62 billion and £78 billion, which equates to about 4% to 5% of the country’s total economic output or about £3,000 per UK household per year.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gareth Thomas: I will give way in a moment.
	In short, the Prime Minister is willing to take the risk of a £3,000 hit to the living standards of UK households from a British exit from the European Union in order to try to paper over the divisions in his party.
	I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will tell us whether he was one of the 95 who signed the recent letter.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I was proud to be one of the 95. I might mention that if I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure for the contribution to the economy of our membership of the European Union. What is the counterbalance to that figure? What do we pay through extra regulation and our subscription to the European Union, and does that leave us with a credit or a debit?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman might like to go into a bit more detail with the CBI about its calculations. It appears from the detail of its work that it has weighed up the benefits of European Union membership and the “challenges”, as it describes them, such as the cost of regulation.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gareth Thomas: Okay. Why not?

Martin Horwood: Is it not part of the CBI’s rationale that to have access to the single market even countries outside the European Union need to pay a significant amount, as Norway does? Countries do not escape the cost, even if they leave the European Union.

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and perhaps I should have been more enthusiastic about his intervention. It is not just Norway that has a problem. A number of countries find themselves outside the EU with very little influence on what EU regulations are approved, and they often still have to accept 75% to 90% of them

Douglas Carswell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gareth Thomas: I am not the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend, but I am nevertheless happy to give way to him in the hope that one day he might want to join us and become my hon. Friend.

Douglas Carswell: I always regard the hon. Gentleman as my friend. Does he not agree that Norway does two and a half times more trade per capita with the EU from outside than we do from within, and that Switzerland does four and a half times more trade per capita from outside the EU than we manage from within? It is, therefore, perfectly possible to trade more freely with Europe from outside the EU than it is from within.

Gareth Thomas: It is interesting that a series of Norwegian politicians have confirmed their lack of influence over EU regulation, and have pointedly suggested that we do not go down the route—I know the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiastic supporter of this route—of denying ourselves the opportunity to have influence over the detail of the single market.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend paints a pessimistic picture of the Conservative party becoming increasingly Eurosceptic, but does he take heart from the strong rumour going around Brussels that the Conservative party might be reconsidering its decision to leave the European People’s party group and might apply to join it once again?

Gareth Thomas: It is not for me to comment on the Conservative party’s membership, or not, of the EPP. We will no doubt hear more if there is any truth in the rumour.
	The Commission’s work programme quite rightly cites deepening the single market as a key priority. It is the biggest such market in the world: a consumer market of 500 million people that generates £11 trillion in economic activity. It remains a deep concern of many in business that the Conservative party is willing to put at risk Britain’s membership of such a huge market for British goods and services. The Prime Minister also appears to be willing to risk our participation in bilateral free trade agreements, not least the hugely important potential EU-US trade agreement.
	We on this side of the House recognise that to help Britain compete in the global market and uphold British living standards, the UK needs to advance, together with others in Europe, a reform agenda that promotes economic growth across the EU and, as a result, helps
	to tackle unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. That includes, as the work programme sets out, the need to extend and complete the single market—I agree with the Minister’s comments on the digital market—so that British companies can benefit from the opportunities of trade with our nearest allies. The operation of the single market in existing sectors must be protected in the face of potential closer integration between eurozone states.
	The work programme outlines the continuing work of the Commission on economic governance and the banking union. Clearly, the stability of the eurozone, and sorting out the problems faced by banks in eurozone countries, is not just of great importance to countries in the single currency—it has a significant impact on the UK, too. Why it takes the European Union to clamp down on bankers’ bonuses, when the Government should be doing it, is a question we are still waiting to get a sensible answer on from Ministers. In this country, we still need real reform of competition in our banking sector to help small businesses get the support they need to grow, employ more people at decent wages and help Britain earn its way to better living standards.
	Another important theme of the work programme is European co-operation on justice and security. The Commission is currently negotiating with the UK on the justice and security measures that we can opt back into. Our police and security forces are rightly working ever closer with their counterparts across Europe, co-operating on issues such as international terrorism, organised crime and human trafficking. For example, we would not have seen the arrest of one of the terrorists responsible for the 7/7 attacks in London without help from our European colleagues. More than 4,000 suspected criminals have been sent back to other EU countries to face justice, more than 90% of whom were foreign citizens, and while not perfect, the European arrest warrant has helped to tackle the so-called Costa del Crime, with 49 of the 65 top UK fugitives hiding in southern Spain having been returned to face justice. In short, we depend on our European partners for intelligence and operational support in order to protect the British public and the freedoms they enjoy. To ensure that those goals continue to be realised, the Opposition want to see the EU’s collective effectiveness further improved.
	As I mentioned, the Government have triggered the justice and home affairs opt-out. Indeed, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary told the House that the block opt-out was first and foremost about bringing powers back home, yet the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), having reviewed the significance of the justice and home affairs opt-out, said:
	“we see little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers.”
	Whom should the House believe when making that judgment—our European Scrutiny Committee or the Home Secretary?

James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us who negotiated the opportunity for a block opt-out?

Gareth Thomas: It was one of a series of sensible reforms that the Labour party negotiated when in power. It was right that we had that judgment to make. It is clear from the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, however,
	that the list of measures the Government want to opt back into will not deliver what the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary claim it will—a significant repatriation of powers—or at least that appears to be the case, on the basis of the Committee’s conclusions.
	It might help the House to reach our own judgment were the Government to update us on the negotiations with the European Commission on the measures they want to opt back into. For example, can the Minister reassure the House that the European arrest warrant will not be put at risk this year? If Ministers’ rhetoric is taken at face value, there remains a threat to continued British participation in European co-operation on cross-border police investigations, while UK involvement in criminal record sharing, work on trafficking and online child pornography, as well as deportation arrangements for suspected criminals, are all at risk too as a result of the opt-out. Such measures provide a vital legal process to prevent people from fleeing justice and to ensure that those responsible for crimes are held accountable.
	Finally, on the tobacco products directive, the House might recall that Labour MEPs voted in favour of a range of proposals aimed at protecting children from being targeted by tobacco companies, including graphic warnings on packaging, the banning of chocolate and strawberry-flavoured cigarettes and a future ban on menthol cigarettes. Ignoring warnings from Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and even the advice of their own Health Secretary, Conservative MEPs voted to weaken cigarette warnings, for weaker regulation of electronic cigarettes and to delay the ban on menthols, and blocked a ban on slim cigarettes, which I understand are particularly targeted at young women. Will the Minister tell us how those negotiations are progressing?
	In general terms, the Opposition support the work programme, but 2014 will be remembered less for this programme and more, I suspect, for how the Prime Minister’s continued weakness in front of right-wing Back Benchers threatened our influence across the European Union.

Brian Binley: It is important that the House considers the European Commission’s work programme, as we have done before.
	The Greek presidency has the potential to make a major difference to the EU at this critical time, and we should have every hope that it will attempt to make those changes, bearing in mind the recent history of the Greek Government. Greece is arguably one of the greatest victims of the bungled “integration at any price” agenda of those behind the European project and should be well placed to showcase the dangers of recent approaches. This was an opportunity for European integration to change course, but the message from the programme of the Greek presidency is that that process of political integration and state building continues apace regardless. This document and agenda do little to address the very real concerns of ordinary voters across the EU and convey that detached superiority of a complacent unaccountable elite. At a time when Europe teeters on the brink, this work programme presents an agenda for ever-more integration, justified in language that would cause even the most cynical to take note.
	We are promised that the Greek presidency will
	“reverse the current trend of youth unemployment”
	as part of the effort on economic growth and job creation, but it seems that the main output is to
	“enhance the implementation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs”,
	whose relevance is worthy, to say the least, of deep scrutiny. If we want to reverse the trend of youth unemployment as well as put right many of the wider ailments of the European economy, we need to revisit the entire economic model on which the European project is based. Instead of a burdensome, overbearing single market driven by a social model that is neither desirable nor affordable, we need a much lighter, more flexible and trade-focused agenda for wealth creation and prosperity.
	That is not, however, the priority of the Commission. Instead, we are promised a further push on the integration of the EU and the eurozone. The work programme undertakes to push hard on banking union, and promises to
	“create a well coordinated Economic and Monetary Union with a view to ending the instability and uncertainty observed in particular in the ‘periphery’.”
	Are they talking about the fastest-growing economy in the world when they talk about the periphery? One wonders whether that is how they see Britain.
	Perhaps of the greatest concern is that we are promised
	“a particular focus on the social dimension”
	of European monetary union,
	“which, for the first time, will be integrated into the European Semester cycle”.

William Cash: My hon. Friend refers to banking union. For the last two and a half days, I have attended a conference in Brussels, in which it was explicitly said, over and over again, that it was crucial to get the banking union proposals through. They pleaded with national Governments to get those proposals through before the European elections, because they fear that if they do not get them through before then, they will never get them through.

Brian Binley: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We know that banking union was proposed as a last-ditch effort to give some confidence to the market, but I doubt whether these are the key economic promises for businesses across the EU—that is the truth of the matter. They are a long way from where voters would like the political emphasis to be placed—especially, if I may say so, in this country.
	It is difficult to reconcile these priorities with the economic realities, particularly within the eurozone. As we emerge tentatively from recession, alongside the United States, the eurozone continues to face a crisis of existential proportions. The promising picture in Ireland and Spain, as well as improved confidence, is more than offset by the risk of a widespread deflationary spiral and the worrying travails of the French economy, which, being socialist-driven, frightens most of the people in most of the countries across Europe.

Douglas Carswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is almost nothing in the Commission work programme that seems to correspond with this Government’s stated priority of trying to change and reform the EU fundamentally to our advantage?

Brian Binley: Tragically, this particular report makes the Government’s task even more difficult. These are real problems that need to be dealt with very quickly.
	The levers of monetary policy within the single currency have been almost completely exhausted: with interest rates at just 0.25%, it seems that the Commission’s only response is a further push for integration. It is as though it were blinkered like a racehorse. It is aiming in only one direction which everyone believes will lead to failure, but its duty is to ensure that jobs for the boys in the European Commission continue to be its prime objective. That problem is caused by the fact that—as we all know—the European Parliament has so little control. The answer is not to give it greater control, but to ensure that control is sent back to sovereign Parliaments where democracy is alive and well, and, I am delighted to say, living in Westminster. At least, I hope that that is what the Government will try to prove.
	The proposals for banking union are chaotic, underfunded and unnecessarily complex. How can a single banking union operate in the context of national vetoes? We do not know the answer. Why is there still no agreement on responsibility for the collective costs? We do not know the answer to that either. If the banking union proposals lack credibility, they will not enhance the prospects for growth and prosperity; indeed, they will do the reverse. These proposals were made on the edge of desperation, in an attempt to give some stability to a market that clearly did not believe in a European currency.
	We need a different relationship with the European Union as never before, and we need it more urgently than ever before. I call on the Government and the Minister to ensure that we start talking very soon about the red lines of negotiation. That does not mean talking about the details of renegotiation, but it does mean talking about the overall areas in which we need to renegotiate. Sadly, the Government have been immensely silent about that, and I fear that unless they start talking about it before the European elections, it could well rebound on us.
	I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we have a proper discussion, so that we can present to the British people a vision of genuine negotiation on issues that genuinely matter to them. That may well enable this Parliament to do one of the greatest services that it has ever done to this country.

William Bain: This debate matters to all our constituents, given the significance of the issues involved in the work programme. Those issues affect our economy because our largest single export market is in the rest of the European Union, and because of the priority attached to completing the single market—particularly in relation to energy and telecommunications—promoting greater access to justice, and redoubling the European Union’s efforts to offer hope and jobs to the millions of young people across the EU who are without work.
	At a time when events remain very precariously balanced in Ukraine, we should also reflect on the Commission’s continuing role in overseeing the EU’s enlargement strategy. Negotiations with Serbia began this week, and association agreements with third countries are still being negotiated. The EU’s neighbourhood policy remains a great force for good in the world.
	The Minister and other Government Members spoke of the risk of the United Kingdom’s being left behind, but today in The Guardian the head of Unilever spoke of the risk of its being left out altogether. We increasingly hear the voice of business in strong support of the UK’s remaining in the EU in order to enjoy the benefits that it brings to business and workers in this country.

Graham Stringer: Is my hon. Friend aware that BASF and Monsanto have already removed their research facilities from this country and from Europe because of European regulation relating to genetically modified foods, and that the REACH regulations—the EU regulations on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—are in the process of destroying heavy industry in the north-west of England? This is a complicated issue, and my hon. Friend should be presenting a more balanced argument.

William Bain: I am grateful for that intervention, but I remember that major employers such as Hitachi established themselves in the north of England precisely because we are in the EU and have access to the single market as a result. Many investors have said that if we were no longer part of the single market, many jobs in this country would be put at risk. I simply ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that point.

William Cash: If the hon. Gentleman were to read not only The Guardian but also The Daily Telegraph today, he would see references to what the chairman of Unilever said. His comments were much more in line with the arguments made from the Government Benches because he was saying that reform was needed and that far more concern was being expressed about that reform than was necessary.

William Bain: I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and I do not want to do a survey of all of today’s British newspapers, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the main story on the front page of the Financial Times this morning was headlined “City warns UK over loss of EU influence”, so I think we are hearing precisely the voices of business, who want to promote job creation and who are expressing the view that isolating ourselves in the way that the Government are trying to do, in a vain attempt to placate the hon. Gentleman, is simply not going to work in our long-term interests.
	There are several points I want to develop in the remainder of my remarks. First, on economic and monetary union, yesterday the International Monetary Fund’s world economic outlook predicted growth in the eurozone for this year at a mere 1% and for next year at an only slightly higher 1.4%. At the same time, there are 26.5 million people out of work across the EU28, and 5.6 million of them are under the age of 25. That is a youth unemployment rate of nearly 24%. That should shame all of us. It should represent a call to action for every politician who has influence to shape the EU’s priorities to focus on job creation for the next few years.
	Over the year to last November our trade deficit with the EU rose to £3.2 billion and the continued low growth in the eurozone area was one of the main contributory factors to dampened demand for our manufacturing exports. By contrast, our trade in services, including financial services, is in surplus. So it is in the interests of business and workers here in the UK to see the fault-lines in economic and monetary union repaired by putting in place a strong set of common institutions like a single resolution mechanism and processes to allow for the resolution of distressed banks in the eurozone area. The question of whether there should be a common deposit insurance guarantee, or commonly issued debt, is certainly a more divisive issue among the eurozone members, but now that a new coalition is in place in Berlin, we should at least begin to have greater certainty about Germany’s intentions on both those fronts.
	We should also welcome the fact that, contrary to many expectations—not least from Members on the Opposition Benches—the eurozone has not broken up. Indeed, Latvia became its 18th member this month. Nevertheless, in this work programme the Commission has acted on the widespread sense among peoples in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Ireland that monetary union lacked a sufficiently social or democratic dimension, with little regard being given to the effects on inequality, wages and, most devastatingly of all, youth unemployment in some of the programmes imposed upon those member states in the name of deficit reduction. It is interesting to note that the Commission’s work programme refers to the further priority for work in this area in the coming 12 months.
	As Commissioner Andor’s report today makes clear—this certainly was covered in The Daily Telegraph, to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred earlier—eurozone members should not be left with the only options being internal devaluations or wage cuts as the means of escape from any future downturns. The price for that would simply be paid by ordinary working people with substantially lower living standards. A eurozone with a strong fiscal union component will help to avoid that possibility in the future.
	When Government Members visited Brussels in October last year we heard from the office of President Van Rompuy that eurozone member states now recognise that sharing a currency and a common interest rate was not enough to avoid the effects produced by the economic shock of the great recession. So plans are now being developed to establish limited pooled resources that could help share out or equalise economic demand when some states suffer a severe dent in their output. We should welcome that. It has also been proposed that a revision of some of the terms of the fiscal pact could allow eurozone states greater flexibility to boost demand through fiscal policy in times of economic trouble. We should also welcome those proposals.
	In common with weak lending to small and medium enterprises in this country, the Commission should also focus in much greater depth on how the European Investment Bank should increase lending to businesses in the coming months, so that Europe’s growth rate can be expanded. In that sense, there are real parallels between the debate on the flaws of monetary union in the eurozone and the debate that will take place in my constituency and the 58 other constituencies in Scotland
	on the future of the economic, political and fiscal union that is the United Kingdom, which will have its resolution this September. There is a strong recognition that a properly functioning currency union requires both fiscal and political union too.
	Secondly, on markets for trade and future growth, the work programme refers to the potential for a second Single European Act to complete the free movement of goods and services in areas such as energy and telecommunications. This is vital so that the EU can establish a proper digital single market.

Steven Baker: It is wonderful to hear a Labour Member advocating the benefits of free trade. Does he agree that the whole world should be a single market, and will he therefore join me in lamenting the existence of so many barriers to free trade across the EU customs union?

William Bain: That is a very interesting intervention. The main issue is what influence we can have over the shaping of the rules. As people in Norway and Switzerland have discovered, the only way to have influence is to be in the organisation. Those who are not full members cannot expect a full say.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The way we would influence things would be by being a member of the World Trade Organisation, of which we would be a single voting member, rather than being one of 28 in an organisation that then subscribes to the WTO. New Zealand has more influence in the WTO than we do.

William Bain: That would be all very well if we did not look at the actual voting strength that the European Union has as a bloc. How can we best maximise our influence in the WTO? It is by pooling our sovereignty and having that greater voting strength. That is what gives us the best chance of seeing the free trade agreements that will benefit businesses and employees in this country.
	The EU also has to look at the nature of the growth that is being generated in our economy. It has to invest more in science and innovation—look at countries such as South Korea that have done that over an extended period. It must focus on skills, to increase employment and as a driver of future wage growth.
	Thirdly, on justice and security co-operation, recent tragedies in the Mediterranean have shown the strong need for deeper joint working to prevent accidents and fatalities at sea, and to target would-be people traffickers. It is perplexing that when the rest of the EU is seeking ever closer co-operation on enforcing common standards, the UK is moving in the opposite direction, with its blanket opt-out and opaque, limited opt-in to the justice and home affairs area.
	Fourthly, on the EU’s external strategy, it is worth noting that the queue of countries seeking to apply to join the European Union is far longer than that seeking or contemplating the possibility of exit from it. That must count for something, and the reasons are clear—unimpeded access to the single market, a rules-based system governed by the rule of law, and an influence in shaping common provisions. States such as Serbia, Turkey and Moldova recognise the greater influence in the world that the EU’s common foreign policy provides,
	the additional strength when negotiating trade rules at the WTO, and the sense that they can have another identity without ceding their own national identity. That same motivation has driven millions of people in Ukraine to urge their Government to sign the association agreement with the EU, which would do a great deal to boost that country’s economy.
	The tragedy is that this Government are distracted from playing the fullest possible role in achieving these goals by their futile attempt to appease their own Back Benchers, who will not be content until the destinies of the United Kingdom and the European Union are on separate paths. For the sake of the future of 3.5 million jobs in our country, of our future prosperity and of our sense of who we are in the world, the Government should understand a little less, and condemn a little more, those whose policy for a British exit would diminish our imprint on the world, not increase it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There are 27 minutes to go, and four people are seeking to catch my eye. Normally, we would also allow the Minister to wind up the debate. I therefore appeal to colleagues to help me to help them.

William Cash: Having listened to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has just said, I think he really needs to take into account the fact that we have a Queen’s Speech every year at about the time the work programme comes out. That Queen’s Speech is put forward on behalf of an elected Government; it contains Government proposals that come from a democratic process. We are discussing a work programme that comes from an unelected bureaucratic organisation that lays out its priorities and expects people to respond to them. There is a serious difference in character between the two. Many of the proposals in the work programme—some of which are not legislative proposals but initiatives—are brought into effect by regulation or directive.
	The proposals in the Queen’s Speech, being democratically driven and debated in the House, are brought into effect by Bills of Parliament. Those Bills have Second Readings, they are amended and they have a Report stage. They go through both Houses of Parliament. However, a single paragraph in a regulation or directive could have the most profound effect on us in this country. The provision would almost certainly be driven through by a qualified majority vote. That could involve our being pushed into a consensus or being outvoted; it could also involve a co-decision with the European Parliament. We have less and less control over what goes on.
	The Commission programme is, as a matter of principle, based on undemocratic systems. That is why the European Scrutiny Committee report, which has received quite a lot of attention recently, has put forward proposals relating to those provisions that could, in the national interest, be considered for disapplication or—in the case of the proposals that we do not want—subjected to a veto.
	In regard to the Minister’s opening remarks, I should point out that the Government are resolutely against several provisions in the work programme, including those relating to the European public prosecutor’s office,
	and to the single resolution mechanism, in which we will not participate. That Government also oppose the provisions on free movement rights, to which they will not subscribe, and to those relating to the European anti-fraud office. All those matters will still be produced by the work programme, however, and we will be unable to prevent them from happening. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East is perfectly entitled to say that he would like to have the single resolution mechanism—in fact, I recall him saying that he thought we should have it. However, I can assure him that that is not the view in the City of London, and it is not the view of many people who have a great deal of knowledge of these matters.
	A serious constitutional question lies in the difference between the Commission work programme and legislation that originates in this House, based on manifestos. The work programme is completely different in character and consequence for the voters we represent, in a way that is profoundly undemocratic. That is point No. 1. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I know that our job is to look at all these matters—and point No. 2 is that we do. We do that diligently throughout the year. Let us leave aside the disapplication and veto matters to which I have just referred. When I was in Brussels yesterday, I was told by very senior members of other national assemblies, “We would give our intense support to anything that would enable us in our own countries to have flexibility to prevent the imposition of legislation on banking union and so on.” Their list is endless, but they just cannot do it because of the way their constitutions are tied in. Our report recommends that the departmental Select Committees could be brought in to make assessments—

David Lidington: indicated assent.

William Cash: I am glad to see the Minister nodding, because we believe our constructive suggestion will help to make more sense of the proposals in this work programme. Not only would each Select Committee have a rapporteur who is a specialist in European matters, if that were agreed by the House, the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee and so on, but the generality of departmental Select Committees would consider whether they wanted to prioritise proposals that came out of the work programme and make their own political judgment on whether they thought it was in the interests of the United Kingdom to go along with those proposals. They might even absorb some of the ideas and say they were good. The bottom line is that there should be a proper democratic discussion about it all, as that would be very helpful.
	The Minister has referred to a number of initiatives, but I wish to say one thing about the repeal of legislation. This relates to actions under the regulatory fitness and performance—REFIT—programme where we must be realistic. There is far too much of a burden on British business and, indeed, on businesses in the European Union as a whole. I hear that view from all my colleagues in the other national Parliaments when I visit them. I shall be going back to see them in Athens this weekend, having just come back from Brussels. They all say the same thing: they want small businesses to be much more effective; they want more opportunities for entrepreneurship; they want to have more free trade; and they want there to be the opportunity to make
	money, so that the taxation can be provided for public expenditure. If not, they find that they have terrible problems with their economises.
	Finally, we must all be very pleased about today’s employment figures. It is a great tribute to the Government that we have seen this dramatic increase in employment. I just add, however, that a great deal of it comes from our expansion of non-EU trade. We see that in the premium selling points of Jaguar Land Rover and the companies where the money is really being made internationally. We have a deficit on current account transactions, trade and services, and imports and exports—the golden criteria. On that principle, we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of £49 billion a year. We had a surplus in the figures for the last accounts of £12 billion, but the figures for the two quarters for the beginning of the next projected flow are £5.6 billion and £6.1 billion. If that continues, as I think it will, by the end of this year we could find that, in one year, business, with the assistance of the Government—I give them credit for this, because they have been listening—will have doubled our non-EU surplus with the rest of the world. That is where the machinery for more employment and the drive for prosperity for this country will come from, which is why I am so pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Government on the figures. At the same time, I issue one small word of caution: we should not put all our eggs in the European basket.

Wayne David: I welcome this debate, but, like the shadow Europe Minister, I think that it would have been more appropriate to hold it some months ago, before the start of the year in which the programme applies. I have read the work programme and the Government’s response, and, like the Government, I agree with much of what is in the work programme. For example, it is difficult for anybody seriously to oppose the assertion at the beginning of the “Commission Work Programme” document:
	“Promoting growth and jobs will remain at the heart of the European Commission’s work programme for 2014. These priorities will drive both the Commission’s analysis of the reforms required at national level…and the initiatives proposed at European level to support economic recovery and job creation and tackle social consequences of the crisis.”
	That important statement makes it very clear what the Commission’s priorities are. It is also worth noting that the Commission goes on to say:
	“But our challenges also go beyond the economy. EU action is needed to protect values and promote citizen’s rights; from consumer protection to labour rights”.
	The report then specifically refers to external action, which is particularly important. I want to place it on the record that this House should acknowledge the excellent work being done by the high commissioner, Cathy Ashton. She has done a superb job. She had a difficult time for long periods, but she is now showing how effective she is.
	I want to see far more emphasis in the work programme on the EU-US trade agreement. It is of great importance and I want to see more than just a passing reference to it. As far as the Balkans are concerned, reference is made to the agreements that have been struck between Serbia and Kosovo, in which Cathy Ashton has played an important role. It is a great shame that the Commission
	does not look a little further and make specific reference to the situation in Bosnia, because there we have something of a frozen conflict. There is scope for the international community, and the EU in particular, to make real progress. Realistically, we can look to a time in the not-too-distant future when Serbia will be joining the European Union, behind Croatia. We should also consider the possibility of Bosnia being in a position to make a valid application, but the truth is that we are a long way from that. The western Balkans have a black hole in the middle, which is Bosnia. We should be aware of that and address it.
	On the issue of international external action, there is reference to Syria. Given the terrible things that are happening there as we speak, and the fact that there is only a glimmer of hope in Geneva, there should be far more emphasis in the Commission’s work programme on supporting humanitarian efforts and doing whatever is possible to support external measures so that there is not only an improvement in the lives of ordinary people but, we hope, an end to an appalling conflict.

Nigel Dodds: I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Syria and the need for greater emphasis on humanitarian aid. Does he share my disappointment, and that of many, that while the United Kingdom has been in the lead in terms of humanitarian aid, providing almost half a billion pounds, the material support of many EU member states has been woefully lacking?

Wayne David: Some EU member states have been more generous than others but we must also consider the fact that many have taken in displaced people, whereas the United Kingdom has not yet done that.
	The Commission’s work programme places emphasis on the REFIT programme, which should be welcomed, but we must be realistic and recognise the modest series of references in the programme. I want a far bigger emphasis in the work programme on subsidiarity, which I do not think is mentioned as a term. That should be part of our agenda for the European Union’s development in the future. For example, I want us to reopen the debate on the future of EU regional policy, whether the member states should be more involved and whether repatriation should happen. There is also scope for us to reopen the debate on the future free movement of people, especially given the domestic debate. Unfortunately, those issues are not touched on in the work programme.
	Those are some ambitions but others relate to the development of the single European market. The programme acknowledges that the internal market in services and the digital economy needs to be developed, but there is no reference to the need to develop an internal market in energy. Although there are good things in the European Commission’s work programme, it does not reflect the priorities that the Government claim, which shows the diminishing influence—in my view, because of the internal politics of the Conservative party—of the British Government on the EU agenda. As we have heard today, the Conservative party is becoming more and more Eurosceptic and as a consequence it is losing allies and supporters in the EU and is less able to negotiate things that are in our national interest. That is the reality.
	Linked to that, we are also seeing a diminution of British influence on the ground in the EU institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) referred earlier to a story, which I hope all Members will read, on the front page of the Financial Times, headlined, “City warns UK over loss of EU influence”. One point made by people in the City is that that diminishing influence is resulting in fewer Britons working inside the European Union institutions in Brussels: the British Bankers Association says that there has been a 24% decline over the past seven years. At the moment, Britain accounts for 4.6% of the total number of people employed in the institutions whereas France can claim 9.7% of them. In simple terms, that means that we have fewer people on the ground making the case for Britain’s national interest. That is bad for us.

Douglas Carswell: Does the hon. Gentleman always judge the national interest by whether there are enough jobs for technocrats and officials? Surely the national interest is a little broader than that.

Wayne David: That is a very disappointing and narrow comment. We are looking at opportunities for British people to work abroad and make a real contribution to Britain’s agenda inside the EU. That is in our national interest and the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that.

Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Wayne David: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes the intervention, I am sure that he is only momentarily being forgetful and that he wants to hear from the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

Wayne David: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Indeed, but they need to have time to make their speeches as well. I am just gently hinting.

Mike Gapes: I just want to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is saying. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced a unanimous cross-party report on the issue he is talking about and the Government, in their response, recognised that there is a serious problem. Although some are clearly pleased that British people are not getting jobs in international institutions, that is clearly not the position of the Government or the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is nice that there are some people who are enlightened.
	To conclude, the report in the Financial Times observed that it is in Britain’s national interest to be fully engaged in the European Union. We have seen a reduction of our influence because of the internal machinations and disputes in the Conservative party. We must look carefully at what bankers are saying. Citigroup, for example, is cited in the FT article. I had a meeting yesterday with the Chemical Industries Association, which made it abundantly clear that it is in its members’ interest for Britain to be fully engaged in influencing and changing
	the agenda in the EU. A similar thing can be said for Unilever, Nissan, Ford, Toyota, the Swift Technology Group and easyJet—the list goes on.
	Over the next few months more and more companies are likely to realise that exit from the European Union is a real threat to the interests of the people of this country. That is why it is important that we have an agenda based on reform, not withdrawal; an agenda that is constructive, not destructive; an agenda that reflects the interests and needs of this country, not the wayward drift of the Conservative party.

Martin Horwood: I shall try to be at least as economical as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).
	On that theme, 90 minutes to debate the European equivalent of the Queen’s Speech, long after the event—the beginning of the work programme—is not adequate. Government business managers need to consider more effective scrutiny of the work programme in future. I would have liked more time to discuss the Commission’s interesting proposals to promote jobs and sustainable growth across Europe, including: the completion of the single market and important sectors such as digital services, which I am sure Conservative Members would agree with; the ambitious trade negotiation process; and—my personal favourite—the fourth rail package, to try to bring the stiff breeze of competition to our own rail industry, apart from anyone else, and to try to reduce some of our notoriously high rail costs.
	I would have liked more time to look at the Commission’s programme on cross-border crime, including the attack on money laundering; at the Commission’s environmental measures, including the 2030 framework, bringing aviation into the emissions trading scheme, and a safe and secure framework for fracking; and at efforts to promote both the reduction of waste and resource efficiency in the European economy. I would have liked more time to look at consumer rights and the benefits to consumers across Europe of increased competition. I would have liked more time to discuss external action, including important action against piracy and to promote peace in the western Balkans and elsewhere.
	I am disappointed that Members such as the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) could find absolutely nothing good to say about the work programme, which is regrettable, but I do not want to fall into the opposite trap of saying that everything that comes out of the European Union is good. At the risk of my future career with the Liberal Democrats, I agree on a limited basis with the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Stone (Mr Cash), as there are examples of regulations that are a burden to business. A business in my constituency, Premiere Products, has pointed to the impact of the biocidal products regulation—a brand new regulation that should have been there to facilitate access to markets across Europe for small and medium-sized enterprises, increase competition and reduce authorisation costs, but seems likely to do the exact opposite. I say to Ministers that the biocidal products regulation is a prime candidate for inclusion in REFIT, as we must consider whether we can do more to lighten the burden of regulation, especially on small businesses.
	The Commission’s programme is a fascinating and important one. The modest motion before us asks only that we take note of the document and regard it as “a useful tool” for looking at that programme, so I am happy to support it.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for his succinctness.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I had better make this my application to appear on “Just a Minute”, which is one of my remaining ambitions, Mr Speaker.
	We have heard in this debate, over 90 minutes, the whole programme of the European Union for a year. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for once. We spend four days on the Queen’s speech. We have 90 minutes on this. What do we have in it? We have a directive on network and information security, to which the Government are opposed, but on which they can be outvoted; a regulation on data protection, ditto; a regulation establishing a public prosecutor, ditto; a directive establishing a financial transaction tax, ditto; a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, just at the time when people are realising that they want cheap energy, not more environmental regulation. We have, fantastically, regulations on European political parties coming through from the European Union, so perhaps they will limit what we can say in future and will not give us any money for it, because the European Union is taking charge. We have, just as the wonderful Romanians and Bulgarians have come in to free movement, a labour mobility package, to which even the Government are opposed, because they do not believe the scope of EU rules should be extended to cover long-term care, they are worried about unemployment benefits, etc., etc.
	It is all going our way. It is absolutely amazing. I am so pleased. I speak as one of those dumb oxes, who put his hoofprint on a letter to the Prime Minister. The letter went in and those very clever people in the Foreign Office did not like it, because they said it was going their way; that they are pleased to tell us that hairdressers will be allowed to wear high heels when cutting our hair. There is rejoicing in all the barber shops across London at this news being relayed to us. They have given away so much. They lose so much, yet it is going their way only in their own minds. We are seeing in this programme 37 new laws that are coming into effect over the course of this year. We are in the process of a federal state being created. We ought to oppose it. If we oppose it rigorously, things really will go our way, and the dumb oxes will finally have their success.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 330, Noes 20.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15521/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2014; agrees that this document is a useful tool for planning the Government’s and Parliament’s engagement with the EU in 2014; and supports the Government’s view that measures which promote growth and jobs in the EU, including measures towards completing the Single Market, are the top priority.

Convoys Wharf, Deptford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate. My purpose in calling it is to share with the House one of London’s best kept secrets and one of its greatest opportunities.
	Fifteen years ago, representatives of News International contacted me to announce the closure of Convoys Wharf. I met them on site, going down a narrow street in Deptford through an industrial gate set in high fences. I came upon a huge area of concrete peppered with massive sheds stretching to the waterfront. It was a vast, forlorn, windy expanse with a footprint similar to the whole of the south bank. My immediate fear was that the site was destined for millionaires’ housing, a gated community cut off from the rest of Deptford that would continue the hundreds of years of local people’s exclusion from their own Thames waterfront. Then I discovered that Convoys Wharf was the site of Henry VIII’s naval shipyard and the home of the great diarist John Evelyn. I sensed that this would be an historic battle, and so it has been, as I, with local people and Lewisham council planners led by John Miller, have sought recognition of the site’s supreme importance and of the imperative to secure a development appropriate to its unique heritage.
	Let me outline the historical record, which I have taken—often verbatim—from the Museum of London archaeology report. The record goes back to the Domesday Book and the manor of Grenviz, the present-day Deptford. In the late 12th century, the manor passed to the de Says family, who named it Sayes court. The mediaeval manor house of Sayes court, which was constructed of wood, was certainly in existence in 1405.
	Deptford increasingly felt the influence of Greenwich palace. It was given a great boost when Henry VIII decided to found a royal dockyard there. Lambarde wrote of Deptford:
	“This towne was of none estimation at all until King Henrie the eighth advised (for the better preservation of the Royal fleete) to erect a storehouse, and to create certaine officers there”.
	This Tudor storehouse was the nucleus of the shipyard. Erected in 1513, it survived in part until 1952. The great dock was probably built at this time, and the old pond at Deptford strand was adapted as a basin to accommodate ships in 1517. In 1581, Sir Francis Drake’s ship the Golden Hind was lodged in a specially constructed brick dock, becoming one of London’s very first tourist attractions. For 400 years, Deptford was the powerhouse of England’s navy. Local boat builder Julian Kingston has recorded:
	“Hundreds of warships and countless trading vessels were built or refitted here including ships for exploration, science and empire. It was the ‘Cape Canaveral’ of its day and is associated with the great mariners of the time, such as Drake, Rayleigh and Cook”.
	In 1653, John Evelyn took up residence in Sayes court. He modernised the house and laid out its vast gardens. He began with an orchard of 300 mixed fruit trees, and went on to create groves of elm and of walnut trees, a huge holly hedge, plots for melons, pears and
	beans, as well as a moated island for raspberries and asparagus, beehives and a carp pond. It was here that Evelyn carried out his planting trials, which formed the basis of his famous treatise “Sylva, or A Discourse of Forest-Trees”.
	That other illustrious diarist Samuel Pepys recorded two visits to John Evelyn’s gardens in 1665. He saw
	“a hive of bees, so as being hived in glass you may see the bees making their honey and combs mighty pleasantly”,
	and Evelyn
	“showed me his gardens, which are for variety of evergreens, and hedge of holly, the finest things I ever saw in my life.”
	Samuel Pepys had major business at the dockyard, having been put in charge of Charles II’s great “thirty shipbuilding programme” in 1677. The Lenox, to which I will refer later, was the first of the ships to be built. In 1708, Master Shipwright Joseph Allin built a house on the site, and it remains intact today. It was bought in 1998 by William Richards and Chris Mazeika who are continuously restoring it. As shipbuilding developed, the slipways became vast structures of brick, concrete and timber and were then provided with cover buildings, an example of which is the Olympia.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Joan Ruddock: The Olympia was constructed from 1844 to 1846 and remains on site today.
	Let me return to Sayes court. When John Evelyn moved out in 1694, it was rented to, among others, Tsar Peter the Great, who came to Deptford to study shipbuilding. He is reported to have trashed the house and garden during his wild parties. Specifically, he drove a wheelbarrow through the famous hedge. Sayes court changed ownership a number of times and became absorbed into the dockyard expansion of 1830.
	In 1869, William John Evelyn, who was a descendant of the original John Evelyn, bought back part of the site. His attempts to preserve the park and museum for the public led him to contact Octavia Hill. Realising that there was no existing legal form that could secure such protection, Hill set about establishing the organisation that was to become the National Trust. Seventeen years later, the gardens were given to the public, only to face their final demise in 1914, when they were leased as a horse transport reserve depot. The gardens were built over and the house was used by the War Office. The last elements of Sayes court manor house were demolished at some time around 1930. It was the Ministry of Defence that eventually sold the site now known as Convoys Wharf to News International in 1979.
	In 1952 a debate ensued over the demolition of the Tudor storehouse. It was not listed, despite the existence of a Tudor arch that was 10 feet high and 6 feet wide and a foundation stone bearing the inscription,
	“Henricus Rex annus Christi 1513”.
	Twenty thousand Tudor bricks were disposed of—some, we believe, to help rebuild the buildings at Hampton Court—and the arch and stone were given to University
	college London, where they are housed today in the computing department. After a successful campaign by the community group, “Deptford Is”, UCL has agreed to return the artefacts. The campaign has now turned its attention to the clock that was part of the 18th-century storehouse, which currently resides in the car park of the Thamesmead shopping centre.
	That is the extraordinary history of Convoys Wharf, which is now the subject of an outline planning application that has been handed to the Greater London authority by the current owners, Hutchison Whampoa. Over the past 13 years, we have struggled to persuade the various developers, architects and master planners to understand the huge responsibility that they have to honour the site’s heritage. Sadly, we have not been helped by the lack of interest from English Heritage.
	In 1999, Alan Howarth conducted a ministerial review of royal dockyards to upgrade listing and scheduling. Deptford dockyard was omitted because it was believed at the time that the only structures of value were the Olympia and the Master Shipwright’s house. An application was submitted locally in 2002, which resulted in the scheduling of the undercroft of the 1513 Tudor storehouse a year later. In 2009, another application was submitted by local people to list the docks, slips, basin and mast ponds. English Heritage recommended not to list. There were many errors in the report and the decision was contested. English Heritage withdrew its recommendation. The Council for British Archaeology and the Naval Dockyards Society, supported by local historians, requested that the case be reopened in 2012. Again English Heritage recommended not to list. The Council for British Archaeology then initiated a freedom of information inquiry, which revealed errors and obfuscation resulting in further exchanges. Last year English Heritage recommended the statutory protection of the dockyard wharf wall and the upgrading of the Master Shipwright’s house. Many features remain without protection and await consideration of the final archaeological survey. I am, however, pleased to report that relations with English Heritage have much improved.
	Given the GLA’s wish to determine next month, will the Minister activate an emergency listing and scheduling procedure based on the available archaeology? That would ensure that Hutchinson Whampoa and the GLA proceeded with the full knowledge of the heritage protections on the site and how they should influence design and construction decisions. That brings me to the most exciting part of this 21st-century saga. As developers’ plans have come forward, so too have local aspirations. We want to create a destination that both honours the past and creates a vision of the future that embraces the vibrant and dynamic community that is Deptford. Two projects would fulfil that ambition and demand incorporation at this stage of the planning process.
	The Sayes court garden project, developed by Roo Angell and Bob Bagley and their architect David Kohn, seeks to create a new garden and a centre for urban horticulture. In their own words:
	“The remarkable history of Sayes Court is filled with bold ideas which understood that contact with nature is an essential part of healthy urban life. Sayes Court Garden is a project inspired by this history of innovation. Combining stimulating design with a programme which brings together all stages of education, from primary schools and practical training to the latest research, Sayes Court is a garden for the 21st century.”
	A comprehensive archaeological survey has revealed the traces of early walls found below an 18th-century building on the site of Sayes court, and nearby garden walls have been confidently reconciled with map evidence of Evelyn’s home. Hutchison Whampoa has recognised the value of these remains and plans to make them viewable. It has also embraced the Sayes court garden project, but in their plan the new buildings will obliterate much of the original garden site and isolate the proposed centre. English Heritage shares our view that the centre for urban horticulture should respond to the archaeology and be set within an open space. Does the Minister support this view?
	The second project, led by Julian Kingston, proposes to build a replica of the great 17th-century wooden ship, the Lenox. The Lenox would be built using modern techniques and enable apprentices to be trained in modern transferable skills. The project also intends to encompass research and training in heritage crafts. Once again, Hutchison Whampoa has recognised the groundswell of support for the Lenox project, but failed to place it appropriately in its plans.
	The massive Grade II listed Olympia building, which is 75 metres by 62 metres and 17 metres high, sits at the heart of Convoys Wharf and covers the recently excavated slips on which 19th-century ships were built. Internally, the building boasts wrought iron tied-arch roofs, two of the only seven remaining structures to survive nationally. It is the perfect location for the Lenox project and a host of supporting cultural activities.
	In front of the Olympia building is the site of the great basin. Restored or rebuilt, this would provide a means of launching a completed replica ship into the Thames and could replace the water body that the owners currently plan to site elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm that English Heritage has no objection to these plans for the Olympia building and great basin? Will he also acknowledge that the experts believe that proper consideration of the heritage assets will necessitate changes to the master plan?
	Finally, let me try to describe the overall development. Yes, it will provide hundreds of luxury waterfront dwellings in very high towers to which many have objections, and many issues will have to be debated and determined at later stages of the planning application about the massing and transport, but the site could also offer an amazing place for locals, new residents and visitors alike. The development would be approached through the extensive Sayes court garden, leading to the horticultural centre and the Olympia building with its myriad activities, and on to the water basin leading to the Thames. It would be a place of which everyone in Deptford could be proud, a place that would sit alongside the world heritage sites that are Greenwich, the Cutty Sark and the National Maritime Museum, a place offering green lungs and riverside walks in the heart of the inner city, a place giving new hope to young people of training and jobs and to enterprising local artists and entrepreneurs. It would be not just for the people of Deptford and Lewisham, but for London and those way beyond this great city. Once again, Deptford and its dockyards could become a jewel in London’s crown.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the right hon. Member for
	Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), whom I congratulate on calling this important debate. I have listened with interest to her remarks on the historic importance of Convoys Wharf, and I certainly echo everything she said.
	Convoys Wharf has been one of London’s best-kept secrets. I am not sure how far I should go in revealing my ignorance, but I am pleased that I am now in the position, thanks to her, of being full apprised of this heritage jewel sitting at the heart of our great capital city. At a time when London is once again one of the pre-eminent cities in the world, it is worth our recalling that one of the reasons it is so successful is its rich history and heritage. It says in my brief that Convoys Wharf is of historic interest—well, that has to be the understatement of the century. It is incredibly important. Henry VIII founded his dockyard there, Elizabeth I knighted Francis Drake there and John Evelyn’s house is there—Mr Speaker, you and I will recall the importance that John Evelyn played in our university life, as the diarist of the Cherwell newspaper.
	The Master Shipwright’s house and the former dockyard office buildings are grade II* listed, which means that they are more than of special interest, and the Olympia building is grade II listed. We have scheduled as an ancient monument the remains of the Tudor naval storehouse, and more recently, in November, I was privileged to have the opportunity to list the dockyard river wall. And of course there might be further archaeological interest on the site, which is why English Heritage, my statutory adviser on the historic environment, is considering an interim archaeological report to see if anything substantial remains of the original Tudor dockyard.
	On a wider point, it is important to say that heritage sits at the heart of many regeneration schemes. The most recent success is King’s Cross station and St Pancras, which is a great example of a Victorian station brought back to life. I was amazed and heartened to hear the other day that the French transport Minister had described St Pancras as the most beautiful railway station in Europe. It is important to put that on the record in the British Parliament.
	Focusing on heritage is, as the right hon. Lady points out, not only important for our history—I am passionate, as she is, about heritage—but creates significant benefits for local economies and communities. It breathes new life into areas; it is essential to the economic and social revival of our towns and cities.
	I was talking specifically about Convoys Wharf and I mentioned the archaeological report that English Heritage is carrying out for me. In a sense, that answers the first question put to me. The right hon. Lady asked whether I would activate an emergency listing or scheduling procedure. I expect English Heritage to report very soon on whether other parts of the site should be scheduled. I can give her an undertaking this evening that I will consider the report the minute it arrives, and take a decision based on its recommendations in short order.

Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks so far. I was told, however, that the report and relevant information and advice would not be finalised until the end of this year. That was, of
	course, a great concern because we are in a period in which the outline planning application could be determined as quickly as next month.

Edward Vaizey: That is interesting. I was unaware that the right hon. Lady had been told that. My understanding is that I can expect to receive the report in February. If that is wrong, I will write to the right hon. Lady, but judging from certain nods I am being given, I am pretty certain that that is the case. I will let the right hon. Lady know as soon as possible if that is incorrect.
	Having set out the importance of heritage, it is also obviously important that London has redevelopment. Convoys Wharf is the largest redevelopment area in inner London. I cannot really comment on the specific proposals, particularly when I might be asked to consider further elements of the site for scheduling or listing. Echoing what the right hon. Lady said, I can say that English Heritage has been involved in discussions about the site for more than 10 years and is now fully engaged in the process. It has identified potential heritage significance and it will, in its statutory planning role, provide expert advice to the authorities on aspects of the proposals.
	It is important to remember that, in preparing development plans and determining requests for planning permission, planning authorities, including the Mayor, need to have regard to the national planning policy framework, including its policies on conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Those policies look to control potentially harmful changes, seeking instead to deliver positive improvements in quality. The NPPF promotes quality in our built environment and balances conservation of the best of our past with support for innovative new design. With that in mind, schedule areas and listed buildings can be given the adequate protection they deserve from both the developer and planners. It is worth pointing out that listing does not amount to a preservation order. The listed building consent regime is built on the philosophy that the best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings is to keep them in active use.
	That brings me back to the proposals that the right hon. Lady has told us about today. Let me comment on some of the specific questions she put to me. She asked about the centre for urban horticulture and whether it should respond to the archaeology and be set within an open space. My understanding is that English Heritage considers that the proposed orientation of the blocks does not best reflect the archaeology in respect of the relationship of Sayes court to its garden landscape. It believes that the remains of Sayes court and its garden landscape would be better reflected by making the relationship more legible. The concept of a centre for urban horticulture, incorporating and presenting the remains of Sayes court, is a potentially attractive one—one that better reflects the historic relationship. I believe it is important to note the views of English Heritage in that regard.
	The right hon. Lady talked about the exciting Lenox proposal to rebuild one of Charles II’s ships within the Olympia—according to its plans, but obviously not to rebuild it with the original material—and to restore or rebuild the great basin in front of it. Because it has not seen the plans for the scheme, English Heritage cannot comment on it specifically. Obviously, if the scheme is viable and it is possible to secure a long-term reuse of the listed building, and if the impact on the archaeology and the historic fabric is likely to be minimal, English Heritage could, in principle, support it, but I understand that the developer thinks that it would be impossible to rebuild the basin without destroying the archaeology.
	The right hon. Lady asked me whether I would acknowledge that the experts believe that proper consideration of the heritage assets should lead to changes in the master plan. I fear that, technically, I must duck that question, as it is clearly for the developers to take into account any listings and scheduling.

Joan Ruddock: There is an issue about whether the basin might be renovated, or whether a new basin might be built within it. There is confusion over whether English Heritage thinks one thing or the other, but we understand that it would be able to approve some treatment of the basin that would not be harmful in any way and would meet our purposes. I wonder whether I might invite the Minister to examine that issue further, and then write to me.

Edward Vaizey: I will certainly seek clarification from English Heritage in regard to its understanding of what is proposed and of what may be possible, and also in regard to its attitude in principle. However, the overriding principle, which I think we all understand, is that the archaeology must not be damaged in any way.
	I recognise the commitment that the right hon. Lady has shown to this project over many years in order to ensure that the architectural heritage was preserved and that we could work towards a better solution. I should also acknowledge the work of the volunteers and members of the local community who have brought their imagination and passion to bear in supporting the project. We should bear it in mind that they are supporting it not just for the benefit of their own community, but for the benefit for the whole of London and the whole nation.
	Finally, let me put myself at the right hon. Lady’s disposal. If she needs me to convene a meeting with the developers, with the Greater London Association, or with anyone else whose views she believes are relevant, I stand ready to assist her in any way that she considers suitable.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Legal Aid and Advice

That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 25 November, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 304, Noes 231.

Question accordingly agreed to.